How are slavery reparations fair?
How are slavery reparations fair?
This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states "the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries".
The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That's 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.
Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?
When I've paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?
Isn't this just a country that isn't doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying "oh there's this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling"?
Shouldn't payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?
(Please don't flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don't know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)
You're viewing a single thread.
There are a few mistakes worth pointing out here. I'll try not to "flame you" and just get to the mistakes or misconceptions. First, just because time has passed does not mean the impact of slavery is gone, not for the countries that were sources of slaves nor the families descended from slaves nor the states that benefitted from slavery. Think of the way wealth and influence get passed down between generations. In a similar way the King and the house of Windsor accumulates intergenerational wealth on the backs of slavery, the decendents of slaves accrued an intergenerational debt that is still weighing on many of them. The whole idea that historical wrongs "impacts nobody today" is, frankly, just false.
Another issue is this idea that slavery doesn't continue to impact these countries seeking or reccomended for reparations. There areany lingering impacts, but let's just look at population impacts. Conservatively,1833 was 8 generations ago. Take just 2 people out of a slave source country 8 generations ago, and assume they would have stayed behind to have children, assume 3 kids per pair, that's 3281 people just missing from that country. 3281 people that would have worked, farmed, conducted trade, produced art and conducted academics for every 2 slaves taken in 1833. How many slaves were taken? Just based on the population math how can anyone deny the impact.
Another mistake is to conflate you, personally, with the state. The state is permanent, its human members ephemeral. You may not personally be responsible for slavery, you may not benefit in any way, but the state did and the state is still responsible today for its historical wrongs and the continuing damage. You're worried about your £569, but a bigger concern is that the state can freely commit attrocity, then avoid culpability by just waiting out the directly impacted. Honestly, you should be focused not on denying the damage of slavery, historical and current, and focus more on which rich asshole the state should tap to make pay. Got any old money arristocratic families hanging around the UK that could use lighter wallets?
This is a good answer. I had to put it into a more modern context, if somebody tortures and kills your parents, why should you have the right to sue them?
You weren't the one tortured and murdered, it was your parents, and they are dead now so it's not like suing the people that killed them would do anything to bring them back.
If you think that you should have the right to sue the murderers of your parents then it makes sense that the descendants of slaves living the life they are currently living as a consequence of the long-lasting effects of slavery should also have the right to sue their ancestors slavers.