NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting programme just on Channel 4, about how much the slave trade benefited Britain's economy, and how the government has neither apologised nor offered compensation. The relatives of slaves are owed -

£4 trillion in unpaid wages
£2.5 trillion in unjust enrichment
£1 trillion in compensation for unfair bondage

...bringing the total to £7.5 trillion, whereas Britain's GDP is about only £1.2 trillion. But then, I thought, wait! Let's not think about this as compensation...all this slave trade was simply Africa's development aid to us! We had wars to fight, factories to build, and Africa generously offered us 20 million slaves. We were always going to pay it back, but we were a little...forgetful!

So, a Marshall plan of £7.5 trillion, from Africa to Britain. Then there's interest to be factored in. Some countries charge Third World Nations interest rates of up to 20% or even 30%! But I'm sure Africa will be generous and charge Britain just 5%.

So, 5% interest for 198 years (since 1807, when the slave trade was abolished), factor in compound interest...













Oh dear.


Because Britain owes various African nations a total of -

£118 QUADRILLON

Well, a little under to be precise, but I'm sure we'll pay back every penny. Or perhaps some philanthropist rock stars in Africa should start a Drop the Debt campaign?

Give it a rest already. No one alive today had to deal with suffering in slavery, so they don't deserve jack shit in compensation. African Americans have an equal opportunity, same as the rest of us, to make something of themselves. They don't need to be given a crutch by a government that doesn't give a damn in the first place, it's insulting.

Well, a little under to be precise, but I'm sure we'll pay back every penny. Or perhaps some philanthropist rock stars in Africa should start a Drop the Debt campaign?
:D That'd be a concert I'd love to see! Might get some interesting music for a change *ducks*...you know...had this thread been about the US making reparations about slavery, I would have predicted a real shit storm...*oh, people are making it about the US anyway...bleh*

Oh, I disagree entirely. There is still great inequality, and I don't think we should just forget about the whole thing. Do you oppose Germany compensating victims of the Holocaust?

:D That'd be a concert I'd love to see! Might get some interesting music for a change *ducks*...you know...had this thread been about the US making reparations about slavery, I would have predicted a real shit storm...

Oh, I'm sure they've got reparations too, but in this area we've got a worse record. But only slightly. ;)

Oh, I disagree entirely. There is still great inequality, and I don't think we should just forget about the whole thing. Do you oppose Germany compensating victims of the Holocaust?

Show me the inequality. Also, I believe the victims of the Holocaust should be compensated for their suffering, as many are still alive today.

Show you the inequality? Worse life expectancy, lower wages, lower literacy rate, fewer children in selective education and a thousand other inequalities do for you?

Oh, I disagree entirely. There is still great inequality, and I don't think we should just forget about the whole thing. Do you oppose Germany compensating victims of the Holocaust?
It's always more convenient to forget the evil people do in order to get ahead...

...certain nations were built on the backs of slaves. And it only doesn't 'matter' because those slaves didn't have the political power to make it matter. And I'm looking at YOU Latin America...not just the US, Britain, Portugal, so on and so forth...

Oh, I disagree entirely. There is still great inequality, and I don't think we should just forget about the whole thing. Do you oppose Germany compensating victims of the Holocaust?

So my family, just because we're white, should have to pay reparations to someone who never actually experienced slavery? What about the Africans and Arabs who participated in the slave trade? Should they have to pay?

Show me the inequality. Also, I believe the victims of the Holocaust should be compensated for their suffering, as many are still alive today.
So who is to blame for reparations to slaves not being made in a timely fashion? Would you support Germany waiting until every Holocaust survivor died off, then saying, "Oops, too late! Get over it!"?

Well, Spain stole 180 tonnes of gold from Latin America and enslaved the population, so they've got a debt too.

Give it a rest already. No one alive today had to deal with suffering in slavery, so they don't deserve jack shit in compensation. African Americans have an equal opportunity, same as the rest of us, to make something of themselves. They don't need to be given a crutch by a government that doesn't give a damn in the first place, it's insulting.
Don't make me laugh. Africa still has to suffer under the impact of the slave trade. African Americans might have it good, but what about the continent? And there are people that suffer from slavery even today, and that's not counting child labor or other exploitation.

Show you the inequality? Worse life expectancy, lower wages, lower literacy rate, fewer children in selective education and a thousand other inequalities do for you?

How is that slavery's fault?

So my family, just because we're white, should have to pay reparations to someone who never actually experienced slavery? What about the Africans and Arabs who participated in the slave trade? Should they have to pay?

Yes.

You don’t owe anything Britain.
You used the power of your navy to end the African slave trade. Not only the Western slave trade, but also the Eastern trade to Arabia.

How is that slavery's fault?

It's not directly, but it's a symptom of institutionalised racism. And you can't say making 20 million people work for no money doesn't have an economic effect.

Show me the inequality. Also, I believe the victims of the Holocaust should be compensated for their suffering, as many are still alive today.They are being compensated, actually. Not just the holocaust victims. The forced labor victims too.

So my family, just because we're white, should have to pay reparations to someone who never actually experienced slavery?
No, not just because you are white. If a nation makes reparations, they do so out of everyone's tax dollars. Including non-white's. And nations who used slave labour should have to pay for that labour at some point. Why? Because that 'free labour' helped get that nation to where it is now. In a law suit, if the plantiff dies before they receive monies decided upon by the court, those monies generally go to the heirs...they don't go back into the pockets of the people who committed the crimes.

Yes.

That's totally unfair, because it creates "white guilt" which is nothing more than thinly veiled racism against whites. I bear no responsibility or fault for slavery, and neither does my family. Forcing all whites for the crimes of a few 170 or more years in the past to pay reparations is inherently discriminatory and unfair.

Should the Italians pay reparations to the people enslaved under the Roman Empire?

You don’t owe anything Britain.
You used the power of your navy to end the African slave trade. Not only the Western slave trade, but also the Eastern trade to Arabia.

A slave trade we funded? With our financial businesses? 40% of MPs were involved in the slave trade, and the royal family were heavily involved. Britain was build with the blood of slaves.

No, not just because you are white. If a nation makes reparations, they do so out of everyone's tax dollars. Including non-white's. And nations who used slave labour should have to pay for that labour at some point. Why? Because that 'free labour' helped get that nation to where it is now. In a law suit, if the plantiff dies before they receive monies decided upon by the court, those monies generally go to the heirs...they don't go back into the pockets of the people who committed the crimes.

The United States' economy recieved comparatively little benefit from slavery. Our industrial revolution, railroads, and the materials that drove them came from free labor. The slave holding regions were in fact economically backward compared to the free ones.

That's totally unfair, because it creates "white guilt" which is nothing more than thinly veiled racism against whites.
Why are you assuming that only whites would pay? How ridiculous. Again...tax dollars, not "white taxes".

And the whole OP was to point out that certain nations owe a hell of a lot more to Africa than their paltry attempts at aid admit...and the idea of 'forgiving the debt' would perhaps go a long way as a sort of apology...

The United States' economy recieved comparatively little benefit from slavery. Our industrial revolution, railroads, and the materials that drove them came from free labor. The slave holding regions were in fact economically backward compared to the free ones.
Then the money for reparations would be comparatively little. Why the worry then? PLUS you'd just be making reparations for slavery AFTER you split from Britain...any slavery in the US before Independence would be on their plate:).

The presenter of the programme didn't actually say Britain should pay £7.5 trillion out in compensation, but they should drop West Indian and African debt and spend more on anti-racism campaigns.

That's totally unfair, because it creates "white guilt" which is nothing more than thinly veiled racism against whites. I bear no responsibility or fault for slavery, and neither does my family. Forcing all whites for the crimes of a few 170 or more years in the past to pay reparations is inherently discriminatory and unfair.

Should the Italians pay reparations to the people enslaved under the Roman Empire?You're right, reparations are not an option. Neither is giving it to the descendants of former slaves living in America.
Something needs to be done though, if only in the form of development aid. But more has to be done to find ways of steering it around corrupt leaders and getting it where it's needed.

Lets not forget the 2 million (estimated) white europeans shipped as slaves to north africa during the middle ages (the boot was on the other foot then)

We can knock what we owe the africans off what they owe us, since, with interest, I'm pretty sure it's going to work out more.

I watched a bit of the programme, and at first was a bit annoyed, and then thought "If the worst thing this geezer can find to whine about is something that happened 170 years ago, he must be pretty happy. And he's got a better suit than mine."

Why are you assuming that only whites would pay? How ridiculous. Again...tax dollars, not "white taxes".

And the whole OP was to point out that certain nations owe a hell of a lot more to Africa than their paltry attempts at aid admit...and the idea of 'forgiving the debt' would perhaps go a long way as a sort of apology...

So the blacks in America would pay taxes for their own reparations?

Yes, we need to forgive their debt and we need to increase our aid. If that's the original, point, then I agree. However, we shouldn't encourage the idea that people of a certain race are "owed something" because that totally destroys the purpose of helping them in the first place.

Interesting programme just on Channel 4, about how much the slave trade benefited Britain's economy, and how the government has neither apologised nor offered compensation. The relatives of slaves are owed -

£4 trillion in unpaid wages
£2.5 trillion in unjust enrichment
£1 trillion in compensation for unfair bondage

...bringing the total to £7.5 trillion, whereas Britain's GDP is about only £1.2 trillion. But then, I thought, wait! Let's not think about this as compensation...all this slave trade was simply Africa's development aid to us! We had wars to fight, factories to build, and Africa generously offered us 20 million slaves. We were always going to pay it back, but we were a little...forgetful!

So, a Marshall plan of £7.5 trillion, from Africa to Britain. Then there's interest to be factored in. Some countries charge Third World Nations interest rates of up to 20% or even 30%! But I'm sure Africa will be generous and charge Britain just 5%.

So, 5% interest for 198 years (since 1807, when the slave trade was abolished), factor in compound interest...













Oh dear.


Because Britain owes various African nations a total of -

£118 QUADRILLON

Well, a little under to be precise, but I'm sure we'll pay back every penny. Or perhaps some philanthropist rock stars in Africa should start a Drop the Debt campaign?

While we're at it, let's just have a big pay-o-thon! Germany can pay Britain for the blitz, then France can pay Germany for the Franco-Prussian war, then Britain can pay France for the hundred years war, minus of course French compensation for the Battle of Hastings and Norman occupation of England. Doesn't Rome still owe us all money? Then on this side of the pond, The northern US should compensate the South for burning down some cities during the civil war, and Japan should pay us some recompense for Pearl Harbor and the Bataan death march.

My dad lost a leg in a truck accident... u know what I'm gonna do? Because laws and standards are different now, I'm gonna sue the company of the truck that hit him because I'll probably get more money than he could have dreamed of... why not? It fits the logic just fine. Hindsight is fun... especially when I can get money from it!

I dunno if this is common knowledge, but bad shit happened in the past sometimes. Some people who lived back then weren't very nice. Sometimes in other cases people who didn't really mean harm just fucked up because they didn't know any better.

Get over it... the people involved are all dead now, and the people who live in the offending countries now (many of whose ancestors at the time weren't living there) don't have the same belief systems as people over 200 years ago and ain't ever gonna pay if they have a lick of sense.

Now the holocaust... that's something different because it was recent. But what about jews who live in Germany? There must be at least a few. Or immigrants who just got there? They should have to pay reparations for the Holocaust via their taxes?

I thought every single German city being bombed to rubble, with the utter destruction of the Nazi party and subsequent execution of anyone involved with the holocaust should at least something of an appropriate punishment for the holocaust... reparations are a stupid idea because they punish innocent people who had nothing to do with the action in question. It's just an excuse to magically try and transform sympathy into cash.

Then the money for reparations would be comparatively little. Why the worry then? PLUS you'd just be making reparations for slavery AFTER you split from Britain...any slavery in the US before Independence would be on their plate:).

Good point, but there would still be people demanding money and it would be a political mess. I'd rather just forgive Africa's debt and increase aid, and forget the entire mess altogether.

The United States' economy recieved comparatively little benefit from slavery. Our industrial revolution, railroads, and the materials that drove them came from free labor. The slave holding regions were in fact economically backward compared to the free ones.That's not quite right. Slavery was the basis on which colonial trade and wealth was based on in the first place. Without slavery, the colonies would not have been that profitable and even if America only slightly benefitted from it, Africa is still suffering. Is murdering someone for their wallet and only finding a handful of dollars in it better because you didn't get as much from it?

A slave trade we funded? With our financial businesses? 40% of MPs were involved in the slave trade, and the royal family were heavily involved. Britain was build with the blood of slaves.
As were many societies throughout history.
The point is, they eventually recognized that it was a terrible thing, and set out to put an end to it once and for all.

Also, the South of the US has already been punished for slavery. See the burning and pillaging of southern states by the North.

Vetalia, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Ay-way, this isn't in the past. The slave trade has devastated the African economy and set in place the global inequality of today. It's hypocritical that we demand interest on loans to Africa, when the First World is mainly rich because of their colonial past.

well actually slavery stopped in britain and british terriotory but in areas owned by the east india company and so on it continued for decades so it will be more as your info will not have included this plus the amount of these terretory's before the end of slavery in britain propper

please excuse the spelling I really cant spell

Why not just give everyone equal opportinities, and understand that those who fail do so because, basically, they suck, and not because whitey has it in for them.
In 50 years since Hiroshima, the Japanese seem to have turned themselves round pretty well, and last time I was in Germany, quite a few people seemed prosperous and happy, even in Dresden. Perhaps they had the strength of character to shut up and do some work rather than trying to blame me for their pathetic state.

Plus slavery was only abolished in 1833.

So the blacks in America would pay taxes for their own reparations? Ironic, isn't it?:) It could become so convoluted...soon everyone would be claiming to be 1/32 black instead of 1/32 native :D

Yes, we need to forgive their debt and we need to increase our aid. If that's the original, point, then I agree. However, we shouldn't encourage the idea that people of a certain race are "owed something" because that totally destroys the purpose of helping them in the first place.
Nor should we think people of a particular nationality 'own everything' and have the right to dictate how the world shall run...but that's another, though related, topic :p

That's not quite right. Slavery was the basis on which colonial trade and wealth was based on in the first place. Without slavery, the colonies would not have been that profitable and even if America only slightly benefitted from it, Africa is still suffering. Is murdering someone for their wallet and only finding a handful of dollars in it better because you didn't get as much from it?

Yes, but those things occured under the rule of England, so any US reparations would be based upon the time after independence. Slavery played a much bigger role in the South than the Northern colonies, and many of the Northern colonies were founded on different grounds than the profit-motivated South, and that would complicate matters further. Drawing the line would be near impossible for what was owed.

Africa has to be helped, but we can't use slavery to extort money from countries. We need to look to the future and encourage aid for Africa to help them move on from the colonial past and put that time behind them rather than dwell on it. Guilt should never be a motivator for aid, but rather the desire to enable all people to have a better future.

Why not just give everyone equal opportinities.

Strange, I was about to do the same thing.

Guilt should never be a motivator for aid, but rather the desire to enable all people to have a better future.

I believe this is justice, not guilt.

Good point, but there would still be people demanding money and it would be a political mess. I'd rather just forgive Africa's debt and increase aid, and forget the entire mess altogether.
Seems like a simpler solution to me too:).

Of course, it'll never happen.

Ironic, isn't it?:) It could become so convoluted...soon everyone would be claiming to be 1/32 black instead of 1/32 native :D

Nor should we think people of a particular nationality 'own everything' and have the right to dictate how the world shall run...but that's another, though related, topic :p

That would be great; I'm sure the entire House and Senate would miraculously discover their black ancestors... :p

I'm always up for another America thread, as long as it's reasoned criticism, not a back and forth flamefest.

I believe this is justice, not guilt.

No, justice would be giving money to the people who actually experienced slavery from the people who actually commited the crime. Guilt, in this case is making everyone pay the ancestors of the victims by creating a collective liability for the crime.

And to further complicate reparations (if they were actually to take place; not that they will, I think):

My family moved from Germany mid-1930's. I'm the 4th generation here. I would assume that my family moved because they wanted to leave Germany because of foresight, or just because they thought they could do better here. And, I'm white. So, would I have to pay for reparations, since my family came around 100 years after slavery? Or would I have to pay for the Jews for their suffering in the Holocaughst(don't know why I can't spell that word, but I can't), even though we left before WWII or Hitler's rise?

EDIT: This is me showing how stupid I think reparations are. People should just live in present times. If something were to happen, it should be helping in aid to Africa and dropping the debt that they will never be able to pay back and is stupid to be keeping track of.

No, justice would be giving money to the people who actually experienced slavery from the people who actually commited the crime. Guilt, in this case is making everyone pay the ancestors of the victims by creating a collective liability for the crime.

I fully agree. Just like I'm not entitled to any Olympic medals I didn't win, None of those slaves I didn't own are getting a bean.

While we're at it, let's just have a big pay-o-thon! Germany can pay Britain for the blitz, then France can pay Germany for the Franco-Prussian war, then Britain can pay France for the hundred years war, minus of course French compensation for the Battle of Hastings and Norman occupation of England. Doesn't Rome still owe us all money? Then on this side of the pond, The northern US should compensate the South for burning down some cities during the civil war, and Japan should pay us some recompense for Pearl Harbor and the Bataan death march. Nice that you only mention countries that don't need the compensation because they didn't get screwed over by it. As for your point with every German city getting bombed, yup, that's pretty much what happened. About 9 to 10 Germans died in allied bombings than Brits did in German ones.

No, justice would be giving money to the people who actually experienced slavery from the people who actually commited the crime. Guilt, in this case is making everyone pay the ancestors of the victims by creating a collective liability for the crime.
Ah...but even if we took the original premise seriously, we would be paying back governments (corrupt ones at that, but let's overlook this for a moment) not individuals...and perhaps applying one debt (the African debt) against this debt...with the understanding that there is a good damn reason to forgive the African debt (if just to avoid paying MORE than those debts are themselves worth).

Because Britain owes various African nations a total of -

£118 QUADRILLON


Why? Africa is also culpable with regards to the slave trade.

The blacks that remained in Africa weren't the ones that were hard done by the slave trade.* It was the blacks that were exported to other countries that were hard done by. The Africans got their money by selling other Africans.



I realise slavery is still around today, by slave trade I mean the traffiking of slaves by western powers before 1807.

Yes, but those things occured under the rule of England, so any US reparations would be based upon the time after independence. Slavery played a much bigger role in the South than the Northern colonies, and many of the Northern colonies were founded on different grounds than the profit-motivated South, and that would complicate matters further. Drawing the line would be near impossible for what was owed.

Africa has to be helped, but we can't use slavery to extort money from countries. We need to look to the future and encourage aid for Africa to help them move on from the colonial past and put that time behind them rather than dwell on it. Guilt should never be a motivator for aid, but rather the desire to enable all people to have a better future.
I don't really see any African countries in the position to extort any money from those that harmed them, to be honest. At least not the ones that need it most. As for slavery happening under England's rule, that's not accurate. The English Monarchy was so poor compared to all other colonial powers of the time that instead of funding expeditions, they let companies take the risk of doing it all on their own. That ended in the companies making the laws of the colonies, unlike the Spanish, Portuguese, or French. Comparing the legislation between English and other European slave laws shows a shocking inhumanity that the English had, while the others inevitable considered slaves human beings.
Aid to Africa is the best answer to ammending slavery, seeing that African-Americans have rather good lives now. Africa, however, is rather screwed due to the slave trade and colonization.

Why? Africa is also culpable with regards to the slave trade.


Good point. Another knot to untangle...let's just forgive the debts, okay?

Why? Africa is also culpable with regards to the slave trade.

The blacks that remained in Africa weren't the ones that were hard done by the slave trade.* It was the blacks that were exported to other countries that were hard done by. The Africans got their money by selling other Africans.



I realise slavery is still around today, by slave trade I mean the traffiking of slaves by western powers before 1807.Africa also got screwed over through colonization. And it was the European influence that turned the slave trade into what it was.

Ah...but even if we took the original premise seriously, we would be paying back governments (corrupt ones at that, but let's overlook this for a moment) not individuals...and perhaps applying one debt (the African debt) against this debt...with the understanding that there is a good damn reason to forgive the African debt (if just to avoid paying MORE than those debts are themselves worth).

Obviously, in the same way as I'm not giving any of my non-slaves any of their non-owed money, citizens of African states who accrue no benefit from the money squandered 'on their behalf' are under no moral obligation to pay it back. Anyone dumb enough to lend money to someone who quite clearly will just sneak it off to his Swiss bank, shouldn't expect his impoverished subjects to make slaves of themselves again to shoulder this new burden.
What Africa needs is good governement, not 'charity' and until 'leaders' like Mbeki, Mugabe, and (maybe) Obasanjo are history, anything we give 'em will just be squandered on Mercedes Benzes, Latvian prostitutes, and torture equipment.

Good point. Another knot to untangle...let's just forgive the debts, okay?

That's what I say. Forget reparations, forget culpability, just forgive the debt. It's the humane thing to do and helps avoid that issue altogether; if we tried to calculate reparations it would probably cost more money than the entire GDP of the planet.

And what about Ghengis Khan eh? Howsabout some reparations from the Mongolians? I could use me a Yak.

And the whole OP was to point out that certain nations owe a hell of a lot more to Africa than their paltry attempts at aid admit...and the idea of 'forgiving the debt' would perhaps go a long way as a sort of apology...

The people who's families were slaves don't tend to live in Africa. Slaves got shipped from Africa, bought by white Europeans, usually sold by black Africans.

It is silly to think that old nation today has its hands clean of blood with regard to slavery.

Africa also got screwed over through colonization. And it was the European influence that turned the slave trade into what it was.

Colonisation is another case. Europe has been horrible towards Africa in many of its policies over the years. Just trying to say that Africa doesn't have bloodless hands in regards to slavery.

But if we were to pay reparations to the descendents of slaves, would it not also be fair to make certain African countries pay too?

Vetalia, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Ay-way, this isn't in the past. The slave trade has devastated the African economy and set in place the global inequality of today. It's hypocritical that we demand interest on loans to Africa, when the First World is mainly rich because of their colonial past.

The slave trade was set up before colonisation largely took place. To see the two as the same is wrong. Many parts of Africa's economy was based on the fact that stronger tribes could sell the soldiers of conquered tribes into slavery.

just forgive the debt. It's the humane thing to do and helps avoid that issue altogether;

Provided the process of cancelling the debt doesn't lock the African nations into unfair trade agreements I'm fine with that.

Africa also got screwed over through colonization.

Colonisation isn't slavery. Though atrocious and bloody, it really isn't the topic of the thread.

If you want to take about colonisation and how Europe raped Africa fine. I'll agree with you on that. But this is about slavery.

And it was the European influence that turned the slave trade into what it was.

What do you mean by that? That Europe provided the buyers? True, but Africans were all too willing to sell others into slavery. So to try and put all the blame on Europe is absurd and revisionist to the highest degree.

Colonisation is another case. Europe has been horrible towards Africa in many of its policies over the years. Just trying to say that Africa doesn't have bloodless hands in regards to slavery.

But if we were to pay reparations to the descendents of slaves, would it not also be fair to make certain African countries pay too?
I haven't been making the point that we should repay slaves. African-Americans, as badly as they suffered, have it quite well to be living in the US. (You're as likely to roll a 1 several hundred times on a six sided dice as you are to be born in an industrialized country) The thing is, Colonization is not another case. Slavery and colonization are linked and they are the two main factors that brought Africa off the path of developing into a stable region.

didnt the english slave traders pay for the slaves they got in africa? doesnt that mean that the africans profitted from slavery and they also owe reparations to the decendants of slaves?

unless you are claiming that the shipowners cheated the african slave traders....

I haven't been making the point that we should repay slaves. African-Americans, as badly as they suffered, have it quite well to be living in the US. (You're as likely to roll a 1 several hundred times on a six sided dice as you are to be born in an industrialized country) The thing is, Colonization is not another case. Slavery and colonization are linked and they are the two main factors that brought Africa off the path of developing into a stable region.

How are colonisation and slavery linked? How did slavery stop Africa developing into a stable region?

I agree to a point, but I think you see them as being far closer that I do.

But the slave trade didn't really cripple Africa, it actually helped the economies of some tribes. Colonisation on the other hand...

This all seems a bit odd to me. If we follow the program's logic then the people of Rome owe quite a bit to quite a few nations.

How are colonisation and slavery linked? How did slavery stop Africa developing into a stable region?

I agree to a point, but I think you see them as being far closer that I do.

But the slave trade didn't really cripple Africa, it actually helped the economies of some tribes. Colonisation on the other hand...What slavery did was completely revamp African culture. Before, it was tribe A against tribe B with prisoners being taken by the winner and prisoners being freed. These were slaves and they were usually forced to do work.
Now when the Europeans came to Africa and began buying slaves, they started removing the captives from the continent instead of the captives being part of a cycle. It turned into a business capturing slaves for the white's, that began setting up permanent settlements where slaves could be sold and loaded onto boats. These were in fact colonies, thougn not as large as they would be later. The arguement that this sapped a substantial amount of Africans that was needed to develop properly (lack of man power) isn't sound, but what did happen was that Chiefs would begin selling of political enemies and that brought political development to a near standstill.
Before the establishment of the slave trade, wars were fought for simple reasons of territory or power or whatnot. Afterwards, they became the sole purpose of gaining new slaves to sell to the whites.
This made up one part of the "triangular trade" that you may have heard of. This system sapped Africa of people in exchange for European manufactured goods. The slaves got sent to the colonies where they were traded for sugar cane or other raw materials. These were shipped back to Europe, where they would buy the next batch of finished goods to be traded for slaves again.
This formed the basis of what made Europe and America rich and Africa poor. It is what funded the full conquest of Africa later (with the exceptions of Liberia and Ethiopia, though even Ethiopia is debated).

Umm, does this mean that Italy will have to pay reparations to most of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East for the slave trade that the Roman Empire practised?

No. I somehow think not.

Oh and also, how many African governments are going to be paying reparations of this kind? Only, if I remember my history correctly, a great many African states actually sold their own people (and war captives) to the Europeans.

Give it a rest already. No one alive today had to deal with suffering in slavery
Slavery has not been fully eradicated. To think otherwise is just fucking stupid.

£4 trillion in unpaid wages
£2.5 trillion in unjust enrichment
£1 trillion in compensation for unfair bondage


True, slavery is wrong, however those persons who were slaves are no longer alive. Their children are no longer alive. I doubt their grandchildren are even alive. Today's Africans are different and have little or no connection to those Africans from 150+ years ago.

Should I be able to sue Italy because 2000 years ago the Roman Empire actively waged war and enslaved my people (Germanic tribes), burning our fields, taking our women for their own and killing our infant children? I would be laughed out of the courts.

I have nothing against Africans, but the notion of reparations for an injustice that they themselves, in their own lives, have not experienced is laughable.

The victims mighn't be around anymore,but I do think as a matter of national honour,countries like Britain,France,Spain etc should do somthing to help out in Africa.Not handout 118 quadrillion,but make a real effort to help the continent.
Noone can force them to,but they should anyway.History will look kindly on nations that tried to right their ancestor's wrongs.

Interesting programme just on Channel 4, about how much the slave trade benefited Britain's economy, and how the government has neither apologised nor offered compensation. The relatives of slaves are owed -

£4 trillion in unpaid wages
£2.5 trillion in unjust enrichment
£1 trillion in compensation for unfair bondage

...bringing the total to £7.5 trillion, whereas Britain's GDP is about only £1.2 trillion. But then, I thought, wait! Let's not think about this as compensation...all this slave trade was simply Africa's development aid to us! We had wars to fight, factories to build, and Africa generously offered us 20 million slaves. We were always going to pay it back, but we were a little...forgetful!

So, a Marshall plan of £7.5 trillion, from Africa to Britain. Then there's interest to be factored in. Some countries charge Third World Nations interest rates of up to 20% or even 30%! But I'm sure Africa will be generous and charge Britain just 5%.

So, 5% interest for 198 years (since 1807, when the slave trade was abolished), factor in compound interest...













Oh dear.


Because Britain owes various African nations a total of -

£118 QUADRILLON

Well, a little under to be precise, but I'm sure we'll pay back every penny. Or perhaps some philanthropist rock stars in Africa should start a Drop the Debt campaign?


Didn't they already pay Africans for those slaves a long time ago?

Nice that you only mention countries that don't need the compensation because they didn't get screwed over by it. As for your point with every German city getting bombed, yup, that's pretty much what happened. About 9 to 10 Germans died in allied bombings than Brits did in German ones.

Dunno what you meant about 'don't need the compensation because they didn't get screwed over by it'... if you mean that those acts that I mentioned didn't damage the countries involved at the time, then I'd beg to differ. Lord knows what atrocities were committed on French soil during the hundred years war. The Norman occupation of England was quite unpleasant by all accounts.

But I was using sarcasm anyway... the specific events aren't the point. Substitute your own favorite human atrocity if you like - the inquisition, whatever. The point is, why should certain ancestors of people who were oppressed get money while others don't? Who makes that determination? To me, it just looks like the same damn countries that always ask for money finding another excuse to ask for money.

When you think about it, Germany should be due quite a lot in the way of reparations... the fire bombing of Dresden, the rape of thousands of German women by soviet troops as they marched to Berlin. There were many innocent people who died or endured horrible experiences in those activities, too. Where is their money?

I also find it interesting that the holocaust is being mentioned here when the holocaust was in part CAUSED by reparations. The climate in which Hitler came to power would never have existed if Germany hadn't been making crippling reparation payments to the Allies after WWI.

Going to this argument that everyone should help their fellow man... sure, if I had a choice I'd rather see a happy and prosperous Africa than not. But when it comes to money, I'd like to see my tax money spent to benefit Americans... all Americans. Give us national healthcare. Take care of our old people. Make secondary education affordable, so anyone with the ability can go to college if they want.. etc.. etc..

1. It is common legal practice for compensation to be awarded to a person's family if they are dead.
2. Having millions of healthy adults removed from the population impacts on demographics for years afterwards.
3. Some of the slaves were paid for, others were simply kidnapped. But using the "they pad for them" argument is endorsing slavery. These reparations aren''t about paying for slaves, it's making up for unpaid wages, unfair enrichment and compensation for torture.
4. On one slave voyage, hundreds of sick slaves were thrown overboard to drown in order to fetch insurance money.

Give it a rest already. No one alive today had to deal with suffering in slavery, so they don't deserve jack shit in compensation. African Americans have an equal opportunity, same as the rest of us, to make something of themselves. They don't need to be given a crutch by a government that doesn't give a damn in the first place, it's insulting.

Please, Black people have way more benifits than other races because of slavery. Starting with college grants, loans, and scollarships just for being black.

Sure...The examples of inequality I gave just now are obviously make-believe...

*Calls the men in white suits*

Reparations should not be paid. Noone alive today bears any responsibility for the actions of the past. As has been said before, there have been plenty of injustices throughout history, we should not pick and choose which ones require compensation. Besides, we cannot make a claim as to how Africa would have developed without the influence of the slave trade. There is no guarantee that the continent would be better off.

For those of African decent that now live in industrialized countries, they have opportunities they would not have had otherwise. If not for slavery, many of them would not have had the opportunity to leave Africa. In fact, if someone is decended from a slave, they would most likely not be alive if not for the slavery that brought their ancestors together..

I believe the victims of the Holocaust should be compensated for their suffering, as many are still alive today.

Ah, and I suppose for slaves it worked something like this?

Former slaves: "We got screwed. How about some reparations?"
White America: "What's that? Can't hear you over the din of the lynch mob and their burning cross."

Children of former slaves: "Really... You owe us money. And it's not like things are getting any better..."
White America: "Ugh, are they talking to us again? Didn't we give them their own bathrooms, restaurants and schools for a reason?"

Grandchildren of former slaves: "Okay, this is getting ridiculous. We still don't even have equal rights, let alone payment for centuries of mistreatment."
White America: "Oh, let's not be hasty now... one thing at a time, you know?"

Great-grandchildren of former slaves: "That's it! We've had it! Give us what we deserve, or there'll be trouble!"
White America: "Fine! FINE! You can sit in the front of the bus, and we'll do our best to let you have a few good jobs. Sheesh! ... But reparations? Now, that's just not fair. None of you were even alive during slavery."

Hmph. I guess they should have asked sooner, huh?

I'm against reparations for the effects of slavery, because I don't think there's any practical way to right the wrongs that were committed without making race relations a lot worse (see Eternal Scapegoats^). Plus the damage done to a culture by generations of slavery ultimately is incalculable.

But I do think a lot of Americans are in need of a development project like the Marshall Plan. I mean wtf, the US government gave 5% of its GDP per year to a nation that was our sworn enemy and had just committed the worst war crimes of human history. If we could do that for the Germans then, why can't we do it for our own citizens now? We have slums that are as bad as some Third World nations. Maybe we should sink 5% of our GDP into those.

That's totally unfair, because it creates "white guilt" which is nothing more than thinly veiled racism against whites. I bear no responsibility or fault for slavery, and neither does my family. Forcing all whites for the crimes of a few 170 or more years in the past to pay reparations is inherently discriminatory and unfair.

Should the Italians pay reparations to the people enslaved under the Roman Empire?

This has nothing to do with individual guilt, and the comparison to the Roman Empire is way off.

Why? Because we are talking about the kind of guilt that belongs to a nation, not an individual. The real crime was never owning slaves -- that was, after all, perfectly legal. The crime was the law itself -- or rather, the set of laws that condoned slavery. (Generalizing a bit further, we could talk about the crimes of colonialism.)

Just as law today would hold an entire corporation responsible for crimes committed by some of its employees -- and stockholders who "never did anything wrong", who bear no individual guilt, would have to pay the price -- so does history hold nations responsible for their crimes, as well as the crimes of individuals condoned or allowed by national law.

Most of the nations responsible for slavery and colonialism still exist, and they owe a debt for their crimes. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, no longer exists. Nor, for that matter, does any sovereign power bearing any direct relationship (historically or politically), to the Empire. (Perhaps the closest one could come is the Roman Catholic Church.) The responsibility-carrying entity no longer exists.

The same argument cannot be made for the United States, England, or most other colonial/slave-trade powers.

If you want to argue that we do not owe on the debts of our forebears, then you will have to argue that we should (rightfully) default on much of our national debt, which goes back even further than the emancipation of slaves.

Why should we pay off a debt -- indeed, pay interest on a debt -- incurred by men whose grandchildren's grandchildren are not even alive? We could have an interesting argument about this... but the fact is that we do pay it, even as we refuse to make reparations for slavery.

You know what that makes us? Hypocrites.

Thats foolish.

Waring tribes would sell their captive enemies so Britian owes nothing.
Pick on the Portugese or something.

heres an idea who gave the 'British' Slaves their Freedom?
Britain right?
Surely they should be greatful for that?

So how much do all the Africans who captured and sold fellow natives into slavery owe? and I think although the Uk was a big player in slavery it was the driving power behind it's abolition!

Reparations should not be paid. Noone alive today bears any responsibility for the actions of the past. As has been said before, there have been plenty of injustices throughout history, we should not pick and choose which ones require compensation. Besides, we cannot make a claim as to how Africa would have developed without the influence of the slave trade. There is no guarantee that the continent would be better off.

For those of African decent that now live in industrialized countries, they have opportunities they would not have had otherwise. If not for slavery, many of them would not have had the opportunity to leave Africa. In fact, if someone is decended from a slave, they would most likely not be alive if not for the slavery that brought their ancestors together..

Of course! Descendents of slaves should thank slavery! [/sarcasm]

@Harlesburg: Whether or not the government finally realised the error of their ways, the fact is that slavery was an oppressive and murderous system upheld by the establishment. To date, the government has never apologised.

Thats foolish.

Waring tribes would sell their captive enemies so Britian owes nothing.
Pick on the Portugese or something.

heres an idea who gave the 'British' Slaves their Freedom? Britain right? Surely they should be greatful for that?


hmmm.

Britain enslaves Africans...
...Britain frees the people they had enslaved.


Wouldn't the gratitude expected of the freed slaves thus be negated? I'm sure I'd have mixed feelings towards a nation that had enslaved them freed my people.

Exactly.

To date, the government has never apologised.

I'm always amused by sentiments like this... so if the current administration sucks it up and just says sorry for something that they rightly feel they had nothing to do with, will we all just shut up about slavery? Will an apology make anyone feel better? Will an apology change anything, or even be sincere? How could I, for example, apologize to someone for something that my grandfather did to their grandfather and actually mean it? It doesn't make any sense.

Any country that existed before the 1900's has a lot to answer for in terms of cruelty. Look at the way criminals were punished... by todays standards their treatment was barbaric. Should the descendants of those criminals get paid, too? How about the people who were press-ganged into the navy? There's a million examples like this. Its futile to try and judge the actions of the past by todays standards... its futile and stupid to then turn around and use that judgement to try and punish people who are alive now because of it.

As was said before, its just an excuse to vent a little anti-white racism. I'm sure if some Nazis were to post here, they'd think of some reasons why non-white people fucked everything up, too, and how that should further their own agenda... and they'd be equally off-base.

An analogy I used before, way earlier in the thread was this:

My dad was in a truck accident back in the 70's... his brakes failed. It was a pretty bad accident, and he lost a leg. Now back in the 70's, lawsuits weren't quite the thriving business they are today and he received virtually nothing from his company for it. But if I look back and judge things by todays standards.. that's pretty fucked up. Going by your logic, why can't I go and sue the son of the owner of that company? Other than because it would be stupid? And how is reparations for slavery any different from that except for the color of my skin?

Oh, I disagree entirely. There is still great inequality, and I don't think we should just forget about the whole thing. Do you oppose Germany compensating victims of the Holocaust?

Well, if that is used as a model, then we would only partially compensate... much as Germany has only done so....

The German Compensation was only towards Jews.... They have never made any overture to compensate the ancestors of Gypsies, Communists, Homosexuals, Catholics (and other Christians), and all the others who suffered right with the Jews in the Nazi "Camps".

Now back in the 70's, lawsuits weren't quite the thriving business they are today

[slight tangent]
yes they were. if anything, they were more common and the average payout was higher.
[/slight tangent]

Er, is anyone actually claiming that we should fish out eighteen quadrillion quid? No. It's a rhetorical device being used to make a point. Drop the debt. Simple.

then France can pay Germany for the Franco-Prussian war

The irony of course, and the ignorance of history that you show, is that they did. Reperations. Quite a common part of many wars. They were a key factor of resentment in Germany after WWI, where Germany was forced to pay for starting WWI.

would there be a distinction between african nations who resisted slavery and african nations who actually collaborated with the slave traders?

The irony of course, and the ignorance of history that you show, is that they did. Reperations. Quite a common part of many wars. They were a key factor of resentment in Germany after WWI, where Germany was forced to pay for starting WWI.

I am aware that reparations have been paid for various wars before (though admittedly I didn't know that about the Franco-Prussian war). That's why I wrote this a couple of pages back...

I also find it interesting that the holocaust is being mentioned here when the holocaust was in part CAUSED by reparations. The climate in which Hitler came to power would never have existed if Germany hadn't been making crippling reparation payments to the Allies after WWI.

I wasn't trying to establish that I had much knowledge of the Franco-Prussian war, and obviously I didn't succeed in that anyway. But the cited examples aren't important, and you can substitute your own. My point was that if we went back throughout history and established reparations for every unneccessary death or hardship that people went through at the hands of another nation we'd be doing nothing but paying and recieving reparations for the next 50 years. My point was that the concept of reparations is unfair and absurd.

This has nothing to do with individual guilt, and the comparison to the Roman Empire is way off.

Most of the nations responsible for slavery and colonialism still exist, and they owe a debt for their crimes. The Roman Empire, on the other hand, no longer exists. Nor, for that matter, does any sovereign power bearing any direct relationship (historically or politically), to the Empire. (Perhaps the closest one could come is the Roman Catholic Church.) The responsibility-carrying entity no longer exists.
The same argument cannot be made for the United States, England, or most other colonial/slave-trade powers.

It looks to me that you're saying that if a particular country doesn't exist anymore, then there would be no reperations. My question would be, do you agree with the flip side to this question. That is, as most African nations came into existance after colonization, are there no reperations? How can you pay an entity that no longer exists? How can we tell which modern African nation was hurt? Do we pay some and not all? How can we be sure that the right tribes are getting the money? I'm sure that at least a few tribes were destroyed between say mid 1600s to the mid 1800s. Where does that money go?

It looks to me that you're saying that if a particular country doesn't exist anymore, then there would be no reperations. My question would be, do you agree with the flip side to this question. That is, as most African nations came into existance after colonization, are there no reperations? How can you pay an entity that no longer exists? How can we tell which modern African nation was hurt? Do we pay some and not all? How can we be sure that the right tribes are getting the money? I'm sure that at least a few tribes were destroyed between say mid 1600s to the mid 1800s. Where does that money go?

I should think the answer is obvious.

Since the crime itself was the destruction of nations and the political/economic destabilization of the region, reparation cannot depend on their existence.

That would be like killing someone and saying, "Well, he's dead. No point making up for it."

Like most supporters of reparations, on this forum and elsewhere, I do not believe that particular individuals or nations need to be named... indeed, giving money directly to many postcolonial nations (not to mention American blacks) would be like Plato's "giving weapons to a mad friend." Owed to him or not, it would not be just to simply hand them over while he is not in his right mind.

The obligation of the white world is to do what we can to repair the damage done to the black world ("white" and "black" used loosely). Of course, that's a complicated matter of economics and politics... and if I knew exactly how to go about it, I would have earned the Nobel Peace Prize, and I would have better things to do with my time than post on Nationstates.

But the point is that we need to start talking about it in terms of obligation, and stop pretending that postcolonial nations should be "grateful" for what aid we can give them, or African Americans be "grateful" for what help we might provide -- whether it's community development, Affirmative Action, or otherwise.

(Of course, they -- personally -- need not "deserve" these things either. But that does not change the fact that former slave-powers and colonialist countries are merely fulfilling an obligation by righting wrongs that they created.)

We long-ago forfeited the right to be "the good guys."

Well those French can pay for invading Britain, and while we are on the Romans (italians) for coming up with the word slave (Slavic) in the first place, and those italians for invading Britain, and the Danes, and the Germanic people.

And when they have paid all thier desendants can leave and go home and leave the place empty.

the whole idea of paying for long gone historical deeds is a crock. When we pay these slave desendants do we send them all back to thier home land? As the grand children of slaves are so much worse off than those that were left behind arn't they?!!

the whole idea of paying for long gone historical deeds is a crock.

Then we do we continue to pay on our (formal) national debt... and expect other countries to pay on theirs?

Why does it make sense to honor one kind of obligation, but not another?

Oh my God, wake up! Demo-Bobylon is not actually suggesting we pay out £18 quadrillion! He's highlighting the hypocrisy in refusing debt relief.

As the grand children of slaves are so much worse off than those that were left behind arn't they?!!

So...

You steal me out of my home and make me a slave in yours. After a while, it's no longer convenient to keep me as a slave, so you move me into the ghetto and let me come out to clean your toilets.

Meanwhile, you have destroyed my former home and left it in greater ruins than the ghetto I live in now... and you want me to feel... what?

Grateful?

Then we do we continue to pay on our (formal) national debt... and expect other countries to pay on theirs?

Why does it make sense to honor one kind of obligation, but not another?
Because a debt is a legal contract. How to you balance the terrible suffering of the slaves with the benefits the desendants have enjoyed. Why is there a price. Do we offset all the aid paid my the UK to Africa? It is not a simple question. Do we go after the US for an illegal revolution and claim back the lands the rebels stole, does mexico ask for texas back?

This is not a legal obligation. It was a low point in western world history. But we can't go back.

So...

You steal me out of my home and make me a slave in yours. After a while, it's no longer convenient to keep me as a slave, so you move me into the ghetto and let me come out to clean your toilets.

Meanwhile, you have destroyed my former home and left it in greater ruins than the ghetto I live in now... and you want me to feel... what?

Grateful?
No the person who lives in the next village sold you to me.
The people who live to the north captured your friends.
So how do we identify the Africans and Arabs who caught you and sold you and get thier great grand children to pay you?
Last I looked the people in the carabean were doing ok.

Well those French can pay for invading Britain, and while we are on the Romans (italians) for coming up with the word slave (Slavic) in the first place, and those italians for invading Britain, and the Danes, and the Germanic people.

That's not an issue, because even though the injustices you mentioned are exactly the same idea, those nations are 'white'. Which touches on the other issue brought up in this thread of these reparation requests just being an excuse to vent a little racism.

Why limit the whole thing to nations? Can't people descended from victorian factory workers sue the descendants of those factory owners because of the poor working conditions endured by their ancestors? And if not, why not? Where do we draw the line with this crap?

That's not an issue, because even though the injustices you mentioned are exactly the same idea, those nations are 'white'. Which touches on the other issue brought up in this thread of these reparation requests just being an excuse to vent a little racism.

Why limit the whole thing to nations? Can't people descended from victorian factory workers sue the descendants of those factory owners because of the poor working conditions endured by their ancestors? And if not, why not? Where do we draw the line with this crap?
I think it has been drawn. But people still bring up 'pay the slaves for what happened, and this is how much it will be....'
I agree, let's agree it was bad, make sure it never happens again and get on with life.

Oh my God, wake up! Demo-Bobylon is not actually suggesting we pay out £18 quadrillion! He's highlighting the hypocrisy in refusing debt relief.

I don't think most of us were arguing that. We were arguing the concept of reparations, esp. regarding slavery, regardless of whether it be in the form of 18 quadrillion pounds, debt relief, or chocolate chip ice cream.

I don't think most of us were arguing that. We were arguing the concept of reparations, esp. regarding slavery, regardless of whether it be in the form of 18 quadrillion pounds, debt relief, or chocolate chip ice cream.
Ah, the joy of discussions wandering off on tangents.

if anyone wants some info on the slave trade click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_slave_trade)

Lets not forget the 2 million (estimated) white europeans shipped as slaves to north africa during the middle ages (the boot was on the other foot then)

We can knock what we owe the africans off what they owe us, since, with interest, I'm pretty sure it's going to work out more.

I watched a bit of the programme, and at first was a bit annoyed, and then thought "If the worst thing this geezer can find to whine about is something that happened 170 years ago, he must be pretty happy. And he's got a better suit than mine."
Yep, entire villages were totally wiped out on the South coast of Ireland. And, since we never practiced state slavery (Our state didn't actually exist back then) we don't owe anyone anything! (Except the English, because we did perform slave raids on them. It's how we got St. Patrick. And we did it before they invaded and took over.)
So what we'll do is take Africa as recompense for being enslaved, give it to the British for being slavers, who can then give it to Africa for being slavers, minus a bit here and there for being enslaved.
Problem solved!

Blair has apologised for burning the Library of Congress in 1811, so I don't see why acknowledging that slavery was an atrocity and apologising for it is too big a deal.

Blair has apologised for burning the Library of Congress in 1811, so I don't see why acknowledging that slavery was an atrocity and apologising for it is too big a deal.

Because it would accomplish nothing. People who hate Europeans and Americans will still hate them. I don't see the other point of view, that being why its a big deal that he should make that empty gesture. We all know that slavery was an atrocity, don't we? Do we need Blairs confirmation on that?

I can't speak for all Americans, but I don't feel better for him apologizing for the Library of Congress... and why should I? He didn't do it. He didn't have anything to do with it and neither does anyone else in Britain now. It was nearly 200 years ago and an apology about that now, at least to me, comes off as meaningless PC drivel.

Britain will pay that money when the decendents of the Africans that rounded up their fellow man packed them off to the coast and sold them to Brits among others pay up...

Is an apology really too much to ask? To date, neither the government nor the royal family have apologised for their role in slavery. The fact is, dirty money from slavery was invested in the economy and has made many people alive today rich. The legacy of slavery lives on in the British economy, and only by having the humility to admit wrongs in the past and realising how hypocritical our stance on world debt is, can we combat slavery and poverty today.

To those who through inheritance feel they have reparations claims, provide the following:

A report including precise date, time, and location of the enslavement incident. Describe the circumstances surrounding the abduction, explain motives for enslavement - political, economic, etc.

Means of transportation from point of enslavement, dates, times, names and positions of all responsible required.

(3) eyewitness accounts, including all the details of the incident. Signed and notarized.

A full report of periods of enslavement. Who purchased the slave and at what price from whom, what remuneration did they pay (including food and housing). Include this for each owner, including address, housing conditions, physical treatment, and written confirmation from eyewitnesses to this. Provide documentation for each such transaction.

You get the idea.

Thread's too long for me to read through, so I apologize if someone already mentioned this.

How much money would the US government lose if we finally gave every black guy the 40 acres and a mule that they were promised after emancipation?

Blair has apologised for burning the Library of Congress in 1811, so I don't see why acknowledging that slavery was an atrocity and apologising for it is too big a deal.

Pretty poor behaviour for a man whose mantra was 'education, education, education' - did he pop back in his time machine with a box of matches & a gallon of regular?

Is an apology really too much to ask? To date, neither the government nor the royal family have apologised for their role in slavery. The fact is, dirty money from slavery was invested in the economy and has made many people alive today rich. The legacy of slavery lives on in the British economy, and only by having the humility to admit wrongs in the past and realising how hypocritical our stance on world debt is, can we combat slavery and poverty today.

This pretty much shows up the hypocrisy of the 'well, they should apologise' meme: The current British royal family are a bunch of Germans bought cheap in a royalty rummage sale about 100 years ago. How can they possibly apologise for the wrongs of someone elses ancestors? May as well ask my goldfish to, they probably have about as much common DNA.

I wasn't trying to establish that I had much knowledge of the Franco-Prussian war, and obviously I didn't succeed in that anyway. But the cited examples aren't important, and you can substitute your own. My point was that if we went back throughout history and established reparations for every unneccessary death or hardship that people went through at the hands of another nation we'd be doing nothing but paying and recieving reparations for the next 50 years. My point was that the concept of reparations is unfair and absurd.
if you are going to use the "reparations of ww1 caused ww2 and so its all france's fault" argument you really do need to look up the franco prussian war to see how the french got treated at the end of it.

I wasn't trying to establish that I had much knowledge of the Franco-Prussian war, and obviously I didn't succeed in that anyway. But the cited examples aren't important, and you can substitute your own. My point was that if we went back throughout history and established reparations for every unneccessary death or hardship that people went through at the hands of another nation we'd be doing nothing but paying and recieving reparations for the next 50 years. My point was that the concept of reparations is unfair and absurd.
if you are going to use the "reparations of ww1 caused ww2 and so its all france's fault" argument you really do need to look up the franco prussian war to see how the french got treated at the end of it.

if you are going to use the "reparations of ww1 caused ww2 and so its all france's fault" argument

Are you saying 'if', as a preventative measure just in case I decide, out of the blue, that I want to say that the Holocaust was all France's fault later on in the thread? Because I sure haven't said that in the past.

My exact words previously were...

I also find it interesting that the holocaust is being mentioned here when the holocaust was in part CAUSED by reparations. The climate in which Hitler came to power would never have existed if Germany hadn't been making crippling reparation payments to the Allies after WWI."

Why aren't people picking up that paragraph properly? Is it that poorly written? :confused:

Anyway, I said it was in part caused by reparations. Wouldn't you say that the state of economic affairs in Germany aided Hitler's rise to power considerably? I would say that, and I would also say that reparations helped, -weren't solely responsible- but helped, bring on that state of economic affairs.

There were lots of contributing factors leading to Hitler taking over Germany and the onset of World War II of course. Regardless of the other underlying motives behind the reparations, those reparations were still one of those factors. That's what I meant.

For what its worth, this is what Wikipedia had to say on the Treaty of Versailles reparations...

Article 231 of the Treaty (the 'war guilt' clause) held Germany solely responsible for all 'loss and damage' suffered by the Allies during the war and provided the basis for reparations. The total sum due was decided by an Inter-Allied Reparations Commission. In January 1921, this number was officially put at 269 billion gold marks, a sum that many economists deemed to be excessive. Later that year, the amount was reduced to 132 billion marks, which still seemed astronomical to most German observers. The economic problems that the payments brought, and German resentment at their imposition, are cited by some as one of the causes of the end of the Weimar Republic and the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, which eventually led to the outbreak of World War II.

If the British government did this with my tax money, i'd take legal action.
For me to allow my tax payments to be given over I would demand them to prove EXACTLY how my ancestors were involved in Slavery, and not just some guy with the same sirname.

They would have to show this in the smallest details....I bet if a few people did this they would get frightened, especially if someone dug into a few MPs family records.

My tax money already goes towards benefits for the huge numbers of immigrants and 'miniorities' who are not working. All these affirmative action type ideas are crap.....these people choose how they live, and Blacks are just as capable of going to university and doing well for themselves.....its just they have grown up on a culture of 'blame the white man and slavery', and surround themselves in a popular culture which promotes violence and opposition to education.

They need to have a change of attitude, and the longer we try to 'reach out' and coddel them, the longer stupid ideas like reperations will come up.

As a Welshman do I have the right to claim for reperations from:
The Romans/Italians
The Irish
The Saxons
The Normans/French
The Vikings/Scandanavians
The English
The English/Scots..on formation of the Union.

Have I forgotten anyone?..think of the money that could be achieved there?
Not to forget that after the Romans came, we had a fairly good life....so after they left we could then blame the Empires and people who brought the Empire down...We could also seek reperations form the Catholic Church for thier destroying our 'Celtic' Church and thus damage to our cultural heritage.

The list goes on, and no matter who you are, what colour you are, and where you are from, claims can be made.
The idea of reperations of this kind are the start of a very slippery and dangerous road.....either way, not one pence of my tax payments will go towards it...and I would fight it all the way.

Because a debt is a legal contract.

Right. Whereas that other stuff is just a crime. I see.

How to you balance the terrible suffering of the slaves with the benefits the desendants have enjoyed.

Have their descendants enjoyed benefits? How do their lives compare to others living in the same country (i.e. the United States)?

But we can't go back.

No, we can't. That's why we have to do our best to make it right.

Last I looked the people in the carabean were doing ok.

Where exactly were you looking? Haiti... Antigua... They are still in the Caribbean, right?

Can't people descended from victorian factory workers sue the descendants of those factory owners because of the poor working conditions endured by their ancestors? And if not, why not?

If they can make a case that they still suffer, systematically, as the descendants of Victorian factory workers... yes.

Otherwise, no.

Notice that the key term here is reparations... that is, payment/aid/policies designed to repair a wrong.

If the effects of the wrong have already been swallowed up into the mists of history, there is no need to repair them.

I think it has been drawn. But people still bring up 'pay the slaves for what happened, and this is how much it will be....'
I agree, let's agree it was bad, make sure it never happens again and get on with life.

To draw yet another analogy...

Imagine you capture someone and bury him up to his neck in sand.

Later, you realize this was wrong... but instead of helping him dig himself out, you say, "Hey, let's agree it was bad, make sure it never happens again and get on with life."

Meanwhile, since you do not need to bother with digging yourself out of anything, you run about grabbing the best education/jobs/housing/etc. before your new "friend"... and then you turn around and criticize him for being "lazy", right?

The point here is to repair the wrong as best we can. Help our friends dig themselves out.

Is an apology really too much to ask? To date, neither the government nor the royal family have apologised for their role in slavery. The fact is, dirty money from slavery was invested in the economy and has made many people alive today rich. The legacy of slavery lives on in the British economy, and only by having the humility to admit wrongs in the past and realising how hypocritical our stance on world debt is, can we combat slavery and poverty today.

Your arguments hold true if we replace slavery with colonisation and IIRC, the royal family has not apologised for colonisation too.

Btw, AnarchyeL, thanks. Just wanted to appreciate your posts.

By the way, in response to the argument that reparations contributed to the rise of Nazism in Germany...

That's true. However, there are several factors that distinguish that case from the ones being discussed here.

First, as has been pointed out, the reparations imposed on Germany were "crippling." They were imposed on a nation just defeated in war, and they were of such a scale as to be quite obviously insulting.

The reparations argued for here, by contrast, no one imagines on a scale that would "cripple" Western economies. While some of us may throw around huge numbers -- the immense profits of the slave-trade and colonialism -- for rhetorical effect, the kinds of reparative measures we envision would, in fact, be hardly a footnote on the budget of the Western nations involved.

Moreover, so far I have not seen anyone argue that reparations should be imposed by anyone. Certainly if the U.N., for instance, had the balls to demand such reparations, I think justice would be on their side... Nevertheless, such a demand is both politically unlikely, and in fact unwise.

There is already resentment from opponents to reparations... we do not need to increase that resentment -- towards black Americans or the postcolonial world -- by imposing reparations from the "outside".

Rather, advocates of reparations add their voices to the existing call for postcolonial debt-relief, African American community development, and Affirmative Action. We believe that it remains possible to generate the political will necessary to voluntarily (at the national level) make reparations for the crimes of the white world.

If they can make a case that they still suffer, systematically, as the descendants of Victorian factory workers... yes.

Otherwise, no.

Notice that the key term here is reparations... that is, payment/aid/policies designed to repair a wrong.

If the effects of the wrong have already been swallowed up into the mists of history, there is no need to repair them.

Yes, but who defines whether the effects have been swallowed up or not? Because if you leave the decision up to the people who stand to make money from it, then the vote will always be that they deserve recompense. If there was some event in the past that I could use to get myself get free shit from the government then I would be sure to push that possibility forward, too. Do many African-American advocates of reparations really care about justice per se or do they just want free shit? What would they call that... a conflict of interest?

With the Victorian thing, the effects of poor working conditions and low pay have indeed affected the families and descendants of those involved... because as a result of exploitative working conditions for the lower class there was less money and less opportunity being passed down from generation to generation. The effect isn't as pronounced as the effects of slavery of course, but the effects are undoubtedly there.

The difference is that such descendants haven't been taught, in many cases, that they cannot possibly succeed in life because of past injustices done to their ancestors. Slavery was a horrible institution, but you must admit that 'slavery' is used by many unsuccessful black people to justify their racism, cover up their own significant shortcomings, or blame their own failures on other people. Just like many unsuccessful whites like to use 'Immigration', or 'Affirmative Action' in the same way.

Also, as has been mentioned several times before, why should this only be a white burden? There were lots of links in the chains of slavery and not all of those links were forged by white people. The middle eastern countries had their share of slaves, and the slaves themselves were usually sold to slavers by members of opposing tribes. Just because one or two countries had better "business practices" (for lack of a better word) regarding slavery and made more money from the institution, it doesn't mean that their role in the process was any more diabolical than those of the tribesmen who sold their fellow Africans to begin with. If I get shot in a robbery and the gunman takes $100 from me afterwards, the pain is no less than if I was shot in a robbery and the same man took $5 from me.

The reparations argued for here, by contrast, no one imagines on a scale that would "cripple" Western economies. While some of us may throw around huge numbers -- the immense profits of the slave-trade and colonialism -- for rhetorical effect, the kinds of reparative measures we envision would, in fact, be hardly a footnote on the budget of the Western nations involved.

You made some valid points about the German reparations after World War I, although I think you underestimate the resentment that would come from any policy like that, whether it be externally imposed or whether it be a tax burden voluntarily assumed by a government on behalf of a people that might not think the same way they do. But assuming, for arguments sake, that we did go through with the reparations and we opt to compensate the African nations in some way. If the reparations that are envisioned are just a footnote on our budgets, then how would that be much different from the aid that gets sent to Africa now? I don't know the numbers, and I'm not gonna insult anyone by trying to say that billions and billions get sent there, but certainly its a significant amount of money and it doesn't seem to be helping at all. And wouldn't the money just end up in the pockets of corrupt officials, like what happens with a lot of our aid money? And would those payments end the slavery issue? No, because people would think they weren't high enough and people also like to complain.

Personally I don't think any reparation payments are ever gonna happen in the US or from the US unless the population at some point becomes predominantly black. Whites who are descended from slave owners ain't gonna support it and people who are first, second or third generation immigrants would rightly feel that they're being unfairly punished.

Yes, but who defines whether the effects have been swallowed up or not?
This political issue, as all political issues, must be decided politically. In the predominantly democratic nations of the Western world, that means: democratically.
Because if you leave the decision up to the people who stand to make money from it, then the vote will always be that they deserve recompense.
I'm not leaving it up to anyone other than the democratic populations whose right it is to decide what to do with their money.
Do many African-American advocates of reparations really care about justice per se or do they just want free shit?
Probably a little of both. I would imagine that most spokespeople of the African American community are willing to take whatever means they can get to improve their communities. Do you blame them?
With the Victorian thing, the effects of poor working conditions and low pay have indeed affected the families and descendants of those involved... because as a result of exploitative working conditions for the lower class there was less money and less opportunity being passed down from generation to generation.
Okay... but now we're getting into a critique of capitalism in general. :) If it comes down to "justice," I think some leveling of the playing field is due here, too... but one thing at a time, and in order of priority. It seems to me that the plight of blacks and Africans is probably the most pressing concern facing the world today.
The difference is that such descendants haven't been taught, in many cases, that they cannot possibly succeed in life because of past injustices done to their ancestors.
First of all, I don't think African Americans are taught that they "cannot possibly" succeed... although this is likely true for many populations in other postcolonial countries.

Second... if that's true, then why do the descendants of Victorian factory workers still, according to you, feel the oppression of their ancestors? Which is it: are they victims of history, or of their own laziness?

Let's try to avoid racist double-standards here.

Slavery was a horrible institution, but you must admit that 'slavery' is used by many unsuccessful black people to justify their racism, cover up their own significant shortcomings, or blame their own failures on other people. Just like many unsuccessful whites like to use 'Immigration', or 'Affirmative Action' in the same way.

Sure. That's only human nature. But what you are attempting here remains a sort of convoluted ad hominem. What difference does it make if some individuals use as an excuse what is nevertheless a valid argument regarding the population as a whole? As undeniable as it is that individuals will use virtually any excuse to bolster their own self-esteem, it is equally undeniable that African American communities still suffer from the legacy of slavery. And it is even more undeniable that most postcolonial countries still suffer from the legacy of colonialism.

Also, as has been mentioned several times before, why should this only be a white burden? There were lots of links in the chains of slavery and not all of those links were forged by white people.[QUOTE]
First of all, the fact that others share guilt does not absolve us any more than it would in a criminal case.
[QUOTE]The middle eastern countries had their share of slaves, and the slaves themselves were usually sold to slavers by members of opposing tribes. Just because one or two countries had better "business practices" (for lack of a better word) regarding slavery and made more money from the institution, it doesn't mean that their role in the process was any more diabolical than those of the tribesmen who sold their fellow Africans to begin with.
Not necessarily, no.

First off, having better "business practices" does not matter as far as "guilt" is concerned. However, it does matter insofar as ability to pay is concerned. Remember, the point here is not to punish former slave-holding nations and colonial regimes. Rather, it is to repair the damage they have done. Thus, nations are obligated on an "ability to pay" basis.

Second of all, even if existing African states bear any direct relation to those that sold slaves -- which seems unlikely -- laying "blame" on Africans may not be as fair as it seems. One could make an argument that they were swindled -- that they were drawn into a business deal without the full implications being made clear. Indeed, the slave trade set the stage for what would become colonial takeovers of Africa.

Just as we might hold the offensive company liable for dishonest business dealings, we should hold Europe responsible for its unfair dealings with Africa.

Nevertheless, I do not want to take this argument too far. It is true that guilt is complicated by the circumstances in which the slave trade took place. But the point remains that the aim here is not so much to punish as it is to repair. Clearly (at least where legitimate regimes are concerned) Africans must be doing what they can to repair the damage themselves -- here responsibility coincides with self-interest. Whatever remains of the burden falls squarely on white shoulders.

If I get shot in a robbery and the gunman takes $100 from me afterwards, the pain is no less than if I was shot in a robbery and the same man took $5 from me.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. The parallel to reparations (if there is one) would be that we require your gunman to pay your hospital bill.

You made some valid points about the German reparations after World War I, although I think you underestimate the resentment that would come from any policy like that, whether it be externally imposed or whether it be a tax burden voluntarily assumed by a government on behalf of a people that might not think the same way they do.

Assuming it's an elected government, people ought to go along with it about as well as they go along with most other things their elected officials do. Presumably, the government would require a rather high degree of public support to do such a thing anyway.

If the reparations that are envisioned are just a footnote on our budgets, then how would that be much different from the aid that gets sent to Africa now?

Two things: First, we would make a more sincere efforts to direct our aid to places in which it would actually do reparative good, rather than to corrupt regimes with whom we want to make nice (for whatever reason); secondly... it might be a somewhat larger footnote. ;)

And wouldn't the money just end up in the pockets of corrupt officials, like what happens with a lot of our aid money?
That is part of the problem. Perhaps if, politically speaking, we were more concerned with reparations than with bribes, we would be more careful about that. (Do you really believe we have "no idea" where the money is going to go when we send it? The CIA may have proven their incompetance lately, but I think even they can figure that one out.)
And would those payments end the slavery issue? No, because people would think they weren't high enough and people also like to complain.
As I've said before, we have forfeited the right to think of ourselves as "the good guys."

Interesting programme just on Channel 4, about how much the slave trade benefited Britain's economy, and how the government has neither apologised nor offered compensation. The relatives of slaves are owed -

£4 trillion in unpaid wages
£2.5 trillion in unjust enrichment
£1 trillion in compensation for unfair bondage

...bringing the total to £7.5 trillion, whereas Britain's GDP is about only £1.2 trillion. But then, I thought, wait! Let's not think about this as compensation...all this slave trade was simply Africa's development aid to us! We had wars to fight, factories to build, and Africa generously offered us 20 million slaves. We were always going to pay it back, but we were a little...forgetful!

So, a Marshall plan of £7.5 trillion, from Africa to Britain. Then there's interest to be factored in. Some countries charge Third World Nations interest rates of up to 20% or even 30%! But I'm sure Africa will be generous and charge Britain just 5%.

So, 5% interest for 198 years (since 1807, when the slave trade was abolished), factor in compound interest...

Oh dear.


Because Britain owes various African nations a total of -

£118 QUADRILLON

Well, a little under to be precise, but I'm sure we'll pay back every penny. Or perhaps some philanthropist rock stars in Africa should start a Drop the Debt campaign?

I can't believe someone wasted money making such a programme... where did the ridiculous numbers come from? Four billion in 'unpaid wages'? based on what? Surely, the whole point of slavery was NO WAGES... so, there ARE no 'unpaid' wages... they paid EVERY PENNY of the wages... i.e. nothing.

What, are you going to base the calculations on minimum wage? Why? I worked many years on less than minimum wage...

People need to get over what happened in the past. Faced with a choice of arguing about who died form what, or who did what to which group... I'd rather think about how I could improve what is to come.

The slaves weren't paid wages, yes, but the point is that they should have been paid wages because frankly, slavery is wrong. £4 trillion works out at about £10,000 per slave per year I think.

The slaves weren't paid wages, yes, but the point is that they should have been paid wages because frankly, slavery is wrong. £4 trillion works out at about £10,000 per slave per year I think.

Slavery is wrong... okay, I agree. But you are doing two things here... imposing a current morality on an earlier time, and applying random statistics to the actions.

What justifies ten thousand pounds a year? Do you honestly believe that the average working man earned ten thousand per year, during the time of slavery?

They were 'employed' as slaves - that was their 'contract', so they earned NO wages. That's pretty much the POINT of slavery.

Not that I think slavery was 'good', but it's hardly a new phenomenon, and it has hardly just been one people that have done it. Or, should we perhaps seek reparation from the Italians, because some Britons were slaves? What about my mixed heritage? At least a quarter of my 'blood' held another quarter in servitude at some time or other.... how do I deal with that situation?

People need to stop seeking past justifications, and start looking forward. The mentality that keeps crying "YOUR PEOPLE OWE MY PEOPLE" is the same mentality that keeps mortars in the air between Israel and Palestine.

This political issue, as all political issues, must be decided politically. In the predominantly democratic nations of the Western world, that means: democratically.

You know, if such a measure ever does get approved democratically then I wouldn't argue - even though I don't agree with the policy, the people will have spoken, and after all, we're probably spending as much on the Iraq war (which I also don't agree with) as we would on reparations. I don't agree with a lot of US policies and I still choose to live here. But on the flip side, if there was a formal vote and people overwhelmingly didn't agree with paying reparations, as seems to be the case with non-blacks, would most advocates of reparations be willing to pack their ideological suitcases and go home?

I might be going out on a limb making this assumption, but I'd guess they wouldn't, because they don't really want this to be decided democratically... what they want is money and they aren't concerned about the majority opinion.

Probably a little of both. I would imagine that most spokespeople of the African American community are willing to take whatever means they can get to improve their communities. Do you blame them?

No, and I'd venture to say that many spokespeople of the African American communities also are smart enough to stir up this issue and use it to bash 'The Man', because they know the government isn't gonna cave on this one and they can get their due individual credit for beating their chests and 'speaking for the people' without actually having to get anything done. They're just politicians after all.

*snip*
Let's try to avoid racist double-standards here.

Let’s not bust out the labeling cards, now ;).

I'm not saying that those descendants are any better or worse people than the descendants of slaves, and I don't think that the idea of a ripple effect stemming from the old class system is just an, 'according to me' type concept. It’s just as valid as the concept that slavery has a ripple effect on the descendants of slaves today. My point is, why is it accepted as reasonable for one class of people to receive compensation but not another? Degree of injury suffered isn't relevant... the idea of compensation today for events in the past, which have all had ripple effects, is either right or wrong.

I don't actually believe that the descendants of Victorian factory workers should receive compensation, of course, for the same reason that I don't think anyone else should receive compensation for events that old. But if you feel the opposite, that at some point that all injustices of this type should be rectified somehow by something other than the passage of time, then how would you practically go about doing it without causing revolution and chaos?

'Victorian Factory Workers' were an example. But there have always been disenfranchised and oppressed classes of people in every society throughout history. Slaves are at the bottom of that ladder, but if they get compensated then every single person who can trace their roots to one of those classes then also has perfectly reasonable grounds for compensation. If we extend the logic behind reparations out a little, the world would become a confusing morass of lawsuits, moronic and meaningless PC apologies from world leaders for events that happened 500 years ago, resentment, and general absurdity. If the logic can't be extended a little further, then is it valid logic?

In the interests of speed I'm gonna have to cut this post a little short... I've been working on this for over an hour and I am supposed to be working (that is, working to earn my paycheck) right now :).

But how about this...

Do away with the polarizing idea of reparations. Realistically we both know its not gonna happen, and even if it does the money will not be distributed fairly. The concept merely causes more racial and national bickering and this accomplishes nothing. Instead, why not a proposal to earmark the same amount of money to research and develop technologies that would benefit everyone? Cures for AIDS and other diseases, better agricultural technology, more effective and cheaper medicines... there are lots of things like that. And of course get our heads together to work out an efficient, unbiased way to distribute the aid that is already going to Africa and help give them some infrastructure, because until that issue gets sorted out the idea of reparations of any kind is completely moot.

Those are ideas that people of all races can get on board with, and therefore we’d be a lot more likely to actually get something accomplished instead of continuing to stoke the fires of racial enmity.

What about the fact that in many cases it was Africans who sold their own people to the British and into slavery? Obviously you have not thought this arguement through very well as there is a multitude of factors. Aid has also been given as had the building of infrastructure. The British also invented trains, jet engines, the first computer, some of the foundations for todays science etc ... All these have contributed to making the quality in life for Africa better.

On a seperate note i do believe that we should drop the debt to Africa and other nations, but i guess that's a different discussion

So...

You steal me out of my home and make me a slave in yours. After a while, it's no longer convenient to keep me as a slave, so you move me into the ghetto and let me come out to clean your toilets.

Meanwhile, you have destroyed my former home and left it in greater ruins than the ghetto I live in now... and you want me to feel... what?

Grateful?
You know, there is a thriving and quite well off black middle to middle/upper class in America that would take extreme offence at being told they are nothing more than the hopeless descendents of slaves, and are so incompetent that white people must come to their aid.

On a seperate note i do believe that we should drop the debt to Africa and other nations, but i guess that's a different discussion

Nope, that's the point I'm making. £118 quadrillion is more than the GDP of the entire world, so there's no way Britain could pay it. I'm trying to point out that the whole debt situation is hypocritical, because the actions of imperial powers in the past have created the poverty we see today.

Instead, why not a proposal to earmark the same amount of money to research and develop technologies that would benefit everyone? Cures for AIDS and other diseases, better agricultural technology, more effective and cheaper medicines... there are lots of things like that. And of course get our heads together to work out an efficient, unbiased way to distribute the aid that is already going to Africa and help give them some infrastructure, because until that issue gets sorted out the idea of reparations of any kind is completely moot.

Ta-da! You've seen the point!

Nope, that's the point I'm making. £118 quadrillion is more than the GDP of the entire world, so there's no way Britain could pay it. I'm trying to point out that the whole debt situation is hypocritical, because the actions of imperial powers in the past have created the poverty we see today.

Well why not stop raking up the past anyway. Of course the Slave Trade was wrong. No one disputes that. But why must we be criticised constantly. Britain was one of amny nations to benefit from slavery, although we were the first ones to ban it and we influenced other nations to do the same. Every nation has made mistakes, and this was one of ours. I think you'll find that the British public are extremely generous when it comes to charitable giving and it was our Prime Minister who attempted to steer G8 proceedings towards the plight of Africa this year. Why don't you get over your distaste for our colonial past and get on with helping to remove poverty today.

You know, if such a measure ever does get approved democratically then I wouldn't argue - even though I don't agree with the policy, the people will have spoken, and after all, we're probably spending as much on the Iraq war (which I also don't agree with) as we would on reparations. I don't agree with a lot of US policies and I still choose to live here. But on the flip side, if there was a formal vote and people overwhelmingly didn't agree with paying reparations, as seems to be the case with non-blacks, would most advocates of reparations be willing to pack their ideological suitcases and go home?

No. But that's what's so fun about majoritarian democracy... the losing minority still gets to complain later. (Some theorists of democracy actually argue that under some circumstances majoritarian-rule does better for the minority than, say consensus-rule or unanimity-rule decision-making.)

I might be going out on a limb making this assumption, but I'd guess they wouldn't, because they don't really want this to be decided democratically... what they want is money and they aren't concerned about the majority opinion.

Look, I'm certainly not getting any money out of this. In fact, I know with great certainty that my admission to one of my graduate-school choices was denied due in part to Affirmative Action style considerations about diversity. Fortunately, I still got into what I considered my first-choice anyway. Nevertheless, I am a member of the group -- white men -- who will see many of our accustomed priviliges dwindle as the world becomes more equal.

No, and I'd venture to say that many spokespeople of the African American communities also are smart enough to stir up this issue and use it to bash 'The Man', because they know the government isn't gonna cave on this one and they can get their due individual credit for beating their chests and 'speaking for the people' without actually having to get anything done. They're just politicians after all.

Indeed, that is what politicians do... But if Frantz Fanon is correct, then it is virtually inevitable to see some violence and chest-beating in a postcolonial population -- and while American blacks are not quite one of the groups to which he refers, he does draw the parallel. We should be happy if all we see is some chest-beating, and if the "worst" has already come and gone in the form of the Black Panthers. Given their treatment, I think they would have been justified in taking things much further.

I'll say it again: We have forfeited the right to be the "good guys." It's too late to complain that no one likes us.

I'm not saying that those descendants are any better or worse people than the descendants of slaves, and I don't think that the idea of a ripple effect stemming from the old class system is just an, 'according to me' type concept. It’s just as valid as the concept that slavery has a ripple effect on the descendants of slaves today. My point is, why is it accepted as reasonable for one class of people to receive compensation but not another?

I told you that I agree!! But now you're talking about a general critique of class society. If you want to keep this within the realm of things that capitalism can handle and still be capitalism (and I suspect you do), then you should be cautious about the parallels you draw.

Degree of injury suffered isn't relevant... the idea of compensation today for events in the past, which have all had ripple effects, is either right or wrong.

Again, I agree. But that is a solid critique of class society. Look, the possibilities break down like this:

1. We can have a class society that also perpetuates racist legacies (the status quo).
2. We can have a class society that, at a minimum, is not also racist (what advocates of reparations want).
3. We can do away with class society altogether.

I'm willing to go as far as you want... but I still think you'd be happier with "2" than "3".

I don't actually believe that the descendants of Victorian factory workers should receive compensation, of course, for the same reason that I don't think anyone else should receive compensation for events that old.

Ahh, we're confused again. Why do people keep trying to make this into something it's not?

We are not arguing for compensation, first of all because nothing we could do could compensate for the suffering endured by slaves and colonized peoples; secondly because those people are no longer around to compensate.

We are arguing for reparation... for repairing something that is still broken.

'Victorian Factory Workers' were an example. But there have always been disenfranchised and oppressed classes of people in every society throughout history. Slaves are at the bottom of that ladder, but if they get compensated then every single person who can trace their roots to one of those classes then also has perfectly reasonable grounds for compensation.

Again, not about compensation... and thus this argument does not hold. Reparations are about repairing communities, not compensating individuals.

For the record, I think that corporations should also be responsible for repairing damages done to communities, as in my hometown where a now-defunct steel mill left its filth covering half the city, and poverty in its wake. (Indeed, in some cases the federal government has begun to impose just this sort of reparation on companies -- especially mining companies -- in certain circumstances.)

If we extend the logic behind reparations out a little, the world would become a confusing morass of lawsuits, moronic and meaningless PC apologies from world leaders for events that happened 500 years ago, resentment, and general absurdity. If the logic can't be extended a little further, then is it valid logic?

Again, there is no place for lawsuits... because this is a matter of community reparation, not individual compensation.

Moreover, the logic of politics has always been one of limits -- of cost/benefit analysis. To go by logic, for instance, if the government sets speed-limits or pollution-limits with the idea that they save lives... then why stop at 100 deaths-per-year due to speeding cars or filthy streams? Why not lower the limits until only 50 people die? Only 5? None?

Because politics always has to consider costs and benefits. The benefits to world relations, global stability, and just plain old justice of reparations for colonialism and slavery would be enormous. It is simply a logical fallacy to insist that "if you fix one, you have to fix them all." The truth of the matter is that "fixing one is better than fixing NONE."

Do away with the polarizing idea of reparations. Realistically we both know its not gonna happen, and even if it does the money will not be distributed fairly.

But it already is happening, in the form of what remains of Affirmative Action in the United States. As for the postcolonial world, debt-relief would be a good start.

The concept merely causes more racial and national bickering and this accomplishes nothing. Instead, why not a proposal to earmark the same amount of money to research and develop technologies that would benefit everyone? Cures for AIDS and other diseases, better agricultural technology, more effective and cheaper medicines... there are lots of things like that.

For one thing, because history has proven that such things do not really benefit everyone. They disproportionately benefit white people... because of the legacy that reparations seeks to ... well, to repair.

And of course get our heads together to work out an efficient, unbiased way to distribute the aid that is already going to Africa and help give them some infrastructure, because until that issue gets sorted out the idea of reparations of any kind is completely moot.

THAT IS THE IDEA OF REPARATIONS!!! The problem is that current policy is not geared toward reparation -- that is, repair -- but toward satisfying a variety of other foreign policy goals.

I will be glad to pay reparations to every slave I have ever owned.

You know, there is a thriving and quite well off black middle to middle/upper class in America that would take extreme offence at being told they are nothing more than the hopeless descendents of slaves, and are so incompetent that white people must come to their aid.

Who has been saying that?

Given the circumstances, black communities have done an impressive job for themselves. Moreover, it is certainly true that certain black individuals and black families have done very well for themselves.

Nevertheless, every community in America asks for tax money for community development. Advocates of reparations (including a great number of the black middle-class) simply believe that more of this money should be channeled into black-community development, because: a) black communities are often in dire need, and b) the circumstances of black communities can be linked -- and are linked, by virtually every social scientist alive -- directly to the legacy of slavery.

(Finally, even if people are offended... Oh well. I think they're taking it the wrong way. In any case, I would rather give what is owed to the great bulk of black America at the risk of offending a few, than simply give up because a few people take offense.)

Well why not stop raking up the past anyway. Of course the Slave Trade was wrong. No one disputes that. But why must we be criticised constantly.

I don't see this as "constant criticism". Here's a deal, when we drop Third World debt, the government apologises for slavery, and racial inequality is history, then I'll stop talking about this. Until then, there's no reason to stay silent.

Britain was one of amny nations to benefit from slavery, although we were the first ones to ban it and we influenced other nations to do the same. Every nation has made mistakes, and this was one of ours.

I would be pleased to see other countries acknowledging their debt to Africa, not just Britain.

I think you'll find that the British public are extremely generous when it comes to charitable giving and it was our Prime Minister who attempted to steer G8 proceedings towards the plight of Africa this year.

Charity is not enough, and the G8's aims are incompatable with global justice.

Why don't you get over your distaste for our colonial past and get on with helping to remove poverty today.
Because our colonial past has helped cause poverty today, and until that is accepted, we cannot make real progress. Don't you see the point I'm trying to make about debt and global inequality?