UN votes to recognise enslavement of Africans as 'gravest crime against humanity'

Cray said:
I think most people today would acknowledge that the transatlantic slave trade was a grave crime, the problem is that the background to this resolution is that some countries are actively calling for reperations. As you said, the slave trade was terrible, but totally unworkable to be able to compensate people today for what happened to their ancestors.
Click to expand...
It's a crime by today's standards. Back then it was just how things were done. In 200 years perhaps a number of the things we consider normal today will be considered grave crimes.
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
And logically, shouldn't the demand that reparations be paid be made to those who enslaved and sold them in the first place?

Afterall, if not for those running the supply of slaves, they would never have been slaves in the first place.

Stupid West. If they had only castrated their slaves upon arrival, and not let them breed, like was the norm at the time (and still is btw), they could've saved themselves soooo much trouble. Rookie mistake.
Click to expand...
Either way ironically the people living in places like the Congo and Ghana today are the people we can be reasonably certain weren't taken as slaves. The whole point of the transatlantic slave trade was that it was transatlantic. The slaves were taken from Africa and brought to other countries. Those descendants of slaves live, for the most part, in the Caribbean and the Americas.

So why should reparations be paid to places like Ghana? Makes zero sense. Jamaica yea OK at least that's more logical, but Ghana? Nah.
 
porchrat said:
Either way ironically the people living in places like the Congo and Ghana today are the people we can be reasonably certain weren't taken as slaves. The whole point of the transatlantic slave trade was that it was transatlantic. The slaves were taken from Africa and brought to other countries. Those descendants of slaves live, for the most part, in the Caribbean and the Americas.

So why should reparations be paid to places like Ghana? Makes zero sense. Jamaica yea OK at least that's more logical, but Ghana? Nah.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they're getting paid twice.
 
porchrat said:
It's a crime by today's standards. Back then it was just how things were done. In 200 years perhaps a number of the things we consider normal today will be considered grave crimes.
Click to expand...
It's less about calling it a crime rather than making amends for injustice in my view. Whatever the norms of the time, am not sure even the most ardent supporter of slavery would have called it a just system unless they resorted to suggesting that black people were less than human.

Irrespective of how people at the time viewed it or lied to themselves to justifiy it, it was clearly a massive injustice that robbed millions of people of their rights and then marooned them in a country cut off from any kind of generational wealth.

But again, there is zero way to actually make this type of payment, too much time has elapsed in my view for it to be workable or equitable. Any kind of reparation should have been done when the slaves were initially freed.
 
porchrat said:
Either way ironically the people living in places like the Congo and Ghana today are the people we can be reasonably certain weren't taken as slaves. The whole point of the transatlantic slave trade was that it was transatlantic. The slaves were taken from Africa and brought to other countries. Those descendants of slaves live, for the most part, in the Caribbean and the Americas.

So why should reparations be paid to places like Ghana? Makes zero sense. Jamaica yea OK at least that's more logical, but Ghana? Nah.
Click to expand...
Paid BY, not too, for sure.

Reparation should be getting paid BY those who actually enslaved the slaves and sold them and made money off doing so, i.e. the countries demanding should be the one's coughing up. They were the SUPPLIERS of the trade/industry should be paying the reparations.

(editted in lieu that think I may have misunderstood your comment at first)
 
Last edited:
Cray said:
Irrespective of how people at the time viewed it or lied to themselves to justifiy it, it was clearly a massive injustice that robbed millions of people of their rights and then marooned them in a country cut off from any kind of generational wealth.
Click to expand...

Seems those in America and even Jamaica are better off than those who stayed behind in Africa though... What generational wealth were they denied exactly? The average US citizen of African decent is vastly better off than their African counterparts from which they are decendents.

Oh, and talking about reparations should've been done when freed. Well, guess what.....

Oh, and another.... What about those slaves who upon freedom, took slaves of their own? Many African Amercicans today are decendents of slave owners thanks to this.
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
Seems those in America and even Jamaica are better off than those who stayed behind in Africa though...
Click to expand...
Sure, if you ignore all the horrible crimes that were committed against their ancestors


MuterOfWorlds said:
What generational wealth were they denied exactly?
Click to expand...
How about the product of their forced labour? White slave owners got to retain the gains gotten from them keeping slaves, what did freed black slaves get?

MuterOfWorlds said:
The average US citizen of African decent is vastly better off than their African counterparts from which they are decendents.

Oh, and talking about reparations should've been done when freed. Well, guess what.....
Click to expand...
Do you think that slaves should have been compensated for their years of forced labour when they were freed, yes or no?
 
Cray said:
Sure, if you ignore all the horrible crimes that were committed against their ancestors



How about the product of their forced labour? White slave owners got to retain the gains gotten from them keeping slaves, what did freed black slaves get?


Do you think that slaves should have been compensated for their years of forced labour when they were freed, yes or no?
Click to expand...

When freed, slaves did receive payments/restitution at the time, was point of the comment. What about those Africans who took slaves in America/Jamaica themselves? Besides, in all these examples, did governments own slaves, or were they private property of citizens? Shouldn't those families who inherently benefitted and become stinking rich, to this day be who pays, if we going to focus on those who benefitted from the labour logic.....

But again, to my comment. They would never have been slaves if not for those who enslaved and sold them in the first place. Reparations should be paid those nations, if not for them and their actions, would never have slaves in the first place.

If we going to assess peoples current situation based on the past of their accestors, then everyone should be considered equally f&%^ed. Let's be consistent shall we, not cherry pick who benefits from that logic.
 
This is nothing but an attempted money-grab. There should never be any compensation to anyone for this. All countries globally should reject this at all costs. Only African countries should compensate their own people for this.

Not a single person alive today was ever a slave or is affected by slavery. Due to this any form of compensation by the Western world should be rejected with the contempt it deserves.
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
When freed, slaves did receive payments/restitution at the time, was point of the comment.
Click to expand...
I really don't think they did. Slave owners got reparations for slaves that they lost. Actual freed slaves generally got f*** all.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/compensated-emancipation-act/

The federal government compensated the “owners” of enslaved people for their “loss of property.” The people who were freed were not compensated, nor given any assistance for the transition to their freedom.
Click to expand...

MuterOfWorlds said:
But again, to my comment. They would never have been slaves if not for those who enslaved and sold them in the first place. Reparations should be paid those nations, if not for them and their actions, would never have slaves in the first place.

If we going to assess peoples current situation based on the past of their accestors, then everyone should be considered equally f&%^ed. Let's be consistent shall we, not cherry pick who benefits from that logic.
Click to expand...
I agree, people who sold others into slavery (many african nations) have no right to compensation.
 
Cray said:
I really don't think they did. Slave owners got reparations for slaves that they lost. Actual freed slaves generally got f*** all.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/compensated-emancipation-act/




I agree, people who sold others into slavery (many african nations) have no right to compensation.
Click to expand...

Those who sold them should be the one's paying the reparations.

And I see no logic in government being responsible for the financial affairs of their local citizens. If going to argue reparations should be paid by slave owners, then follow the logic properly and go after the generational wealth of the actual specific families who got wealthy off the backs of slaves, the 1% or so of the populace who actually owned any slaves.
 
Between 1500 and 1800, around 12-15 million people were captured in Africa and taken to the Americas
Click to expand...

that is around 4000 people per month over the period.
seems ships carried between 200 to 600 ppl - so perhaps an average of 400 people per ship.
that comes to 10 ships per month - 1 ship carrying 400 people to the americas every 3 days.

the trip appears to have taken a ship around 45 to 60 days.

just how many of those ships were there to continually transports that volume of people ?
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
Those who sold them should be the one's paying the reparations.
Click to expand...
So they people that owned them, benefitted from their labour and mistreated them get a free pass?

MuterOfWorlds said:
And I see no logic in government being responsible for the financial affairs of their local citizens. If going to argue reparations should be paid by slave owners,
Click to expand...
I never did, I pointed out that injustice that slave owners got reperations while actual slaves got bugger all.

MuterOfWorlds said:
then follow the logic properly and go after the generational wealth of the actual specific families who got wealthy off the backs of slaves, the 1% or so of the populace who actually owned any slaves.
Click to expand...
Estimates range from 1.4% to 4,9% of all Americans owning slaves at the height of the slave era. For Southern household, this was about 25%.
 
Grant said:
that is around 4000 people per month over the period.
seems ships carried between 200 to 600 ppl - so perhaps an average of 400 people per ship.
that comes to 10 ships per month - 1 ship carrying 400 people to the americas every 3 days.

the trip appears to have taken a ship around 45 to 60 days.

just how many of those ships were there to continually transports that volume of people ?
Click to expand...

Also, everywhere I've looked when reading up on Transatlantic trade, estimates for USA import of slaves was only 500k of that est. total, with the vast majority going to Caribean and South America. The Spanish colonies were the primary importers.
 
Cray said:
So they people that owned them, benefitted from their labour and mistreated them get a free pass?


I never did, I pointed out that injustice that slave owners got reperations while actual slaves got bugger all.


Estimates range from 1.4% to 4,9% of all Americans owning slaves at the height of the slave era. For Southern household, this was about 25%.
Click to expand...

Like I keep saying, that you seem to ignore, the families responsible should be held liable, not governments, and that is to some extent what happened, restitutions were paid, included in some cased, 40acres of land given to family actually. The key is that those who bought the slaves, the private families were the perpetrated, who should be paying, not the other +-98% of the population. Make those directly responsible pay, go after that generational wealth, if its still there. You cannot punish the 98% who did not partake is the point.

It not being made formal, or done by government decree, is not the same as didn't happen.

Interestingly too, the first legal slave owner in USA was an black person.

But yeah, let's only look at the white people and only their involvement in transatlantic, lets ignore ALL other cases of slavery throughout history, before and after. Much logic.
 
Then there was the slavery practised by the Vikings

Not forgetting Irish slaves were a thing for a while

REPARATIONS FOR EVERYONE FOREVER!!!

Just Africa trying to wrangle more free cash because reasons.

Much like how the AU claimed all maps were racist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X