The United Nations General Assembly has voted to recognise the enslavement of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”, a move advocates hope will pave the way for healing and justice.
The resolution - proposed by Ghana - called for this designation, while also urging UN member states to consider apologising for the slave trade and contributing to a reparations fund. It does not mention a specific amount of money.
The proposal was adopted with 123 votes in favour and three against - the United States, Israel and Argentina.
Countries like the UK have long rejected calls to pay reparations, saying today’s institutions cannot be held responsible for past wrongs.
Does it need to be a competition? Jeez
Trump : The gravest crime against humanity is I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize, everybody knows that. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Why not slavery in Roman Empire? That shit went on for a 1500years
America and Israel voted against, our other satellites abstained, our victims voted in favor.
I can agree about the reparations part. There is no institution in the world that you could trust to handle a reparations fund and it would never be given to the people who actually need it. It would be a slush fund for the rich.
“We cannot do the right thing. There will be some corruption involved!”.
Corrupt reparations fund sounds better than corrupt military industrial fund.
Sure let’s trade one corrupt slush fund for another one. Do you even listen to the things you say?
So it’s pretty definitionally oppression Olympics, but I feel like the slave trade is a decent contender. It lasted centuries; maybe more depending a bunch of history that’s still up in the air. The Holocaust (for example) only went on for a few years.
I’m not sure Ghana has hands as clean as they’re implying, though. The victims of the transatlantic slave trade had to (ahem) leave Africa entirely, and usually it wasn’t the Europeans catching and selling them on their own.
So it’s pretty definitionally oppression Olympics,
That is the reason so many countries abstained from the vote.
I’m guessing afraid to contradict the US probably fits in there, too.
No because they would be agreeing to having to pay reparations.
Never going to happen. Who would force them to pay? Who would they pay? Its a conceptual reparation not a practical one.
Well maybe ending neocolonial exploitation for starters?
Removed by mod
It shouldn’t be the average taxpayer in these countries who has to pay for reparations (especially when many were descendants of peasants who were also often exploited in other ways), while the wealthy families who benefited the most evade responsibility, smuggling their blood-earned fortunes to tax havens.
It should, because the collective wealth of most of Europe and the United States is built upon slavery.
Any time people profit from infrastructure and education, which isn’t available in the previously enslaved countries, they are benefiting from the fruits of slavery to this day.
So nothing would be sent to Rio de Janeiro because the infrastructure there was built through slavery, and the same could be said for Luanda.
I am Portuguese. My grandparents and the majority of the Portuguese population didn’t even have basic sanitation or education in the 1970s, despite the fact that our country’s elite were among the greatest, if not the biggest, traffickers in the transatlantic slave trade. The electricity grid only reached their neighborhood in the 80s, more than a decade after the Carnation Revolution of April 25, 1974. Perhaps, our family should receive reparations.
The elite should pay, and the exploited working class must not allow itself to be divided due to petty things like their country of origin. Engaging in any other way is simply falling into yet another “trap” of the universal rent-seeking exploiters, the bourgeoisie. In short, “não se confunda a árvore com a floresta”.
The Holocaust isnt even a notable genocide in history. What makes it special is white people humiliating, brutalising and killing other white people instead of the native African, Arab or Asian. Aime Cesaire makes note of this in Discourse on Colonialism.
I mean, it was hardly the first European genocide.
This is why people don’t like the oppression Olympics. It immediately becomes about who you can make lose them.
What was the first? I wouldn’t count the Armenian genocide as European.
The very first? Uhh, something in prehistory. Maybe neanderthals did them, maybe they were part of how neanderthals went away. There’s a couple genetic near-total replacements in recent British prehistory, for a more concrete example. The mesolithic residents would have been black and blue-eyed.
Rome did a genocide or two, the Byzantines did things to the Bulgars that probably qualify. I’m tempted to say the Mongols, because of the fame, but that’s probably not an example. I don’t know if they targeted any ethnic group selectively, and even in sources from people who hated them it’s pretty clear they were relatively tolerant.
We don’t recognise any non-white responsibility in any form of slavery here
Slavery has existed in many different cultures, and Africa has had slave trade after it was abolished in Europe and North America, but I think it’s fair to say that the transatlantic slave trade was the most cruel and inhuman form of slavery. The only form of slavery that may have been worse was the one Leopold II imposed on Congo.
It’s racism that made those forms of slavery even worse. I think racism makes everything worse.
I think the biggest contender for worst crime against humanity was the Native American genocide. That was also driven by racism. So was the Holocaust.
but I think it’s fair to say that the transatlantic slave trade was the most cruel and inhuman form of slavery.
I can think of other contenders, actually, but Sparta and Russia are both retconned as white (before the concept existed). Maybe something in east Asia, or the Middle East. Any society with a supermajority of slaves is a good candidate to have some of the same rules in place.
I think the biggest contender for worst crime against humanity was the Native American genocide.
I mean, they also did that in Australia, for example, and there’s tons of similar events in prehistory we can see through sudden shifts in genetic makeup.
Genocides aren’t rare, and since the Americas were a bit more sparsely populated I’m not even sure that’s the biggest one.
I don’t see how any of that relates to the white washing of African people’s involvement in enslaving and selling other African ethnic groups but go on
Removed by mod
Hey amateur student of history here. The fuck do you mean? The only worst instances that compare would be the Native American genocides, Ghengis Khan putting a dent in the carbon footprint, the African slave trade, The Holodomor, and the Cambodian Genocide.
I get the want to counter the focus on the plight of Jews during the Holocaust feeding into Israeli support but this ain’t it chief, if you want to do this bring focus on everyone else killed in the Holocaust like the Romani, Gay folks, Trans folks, non-german minorities as a whole, and political dissidents. Don’t try to be edgy with the whole “the Holocaust wasn’t so bad shtick” that’s how you help uplift literal fucken Nazis.
If we’re doing Olympics probably, yeah. It might be top 20 but there’s a whole lot of world and a whole lot of history. The one that happened in Europe is the one European and European-like countries took notice of, though.
It’s great that we learn so much about it, and the fact that people just like us did it. Simply burying ugly things is the natural tendency. It’s also given us a framework to understand earlier genocides, and genocides in distant modern places, like Israel or Rwanda, as they happen.
Removed by mod
Yeah but many of the victims of the Holocaust were white. Have you considered that?
feddit.org mods banning people because that is disrespectful to the grandioseness of Nazi Germany in 3… 2…
Seriously. How dare they take away from the only true victims of history.
“Israel” strange coincidence !!! (ironic)
They’re just jealous
For Israel, exploiting an entire people is not a problem.
You guessed it, it’s the usual map:
The EU abstained because bla bla TLDR: they don’t want to pay reparations.
I don’t think Estonia, Poland or Montenegro were very worried about paying reparations. Maybe colonial powers, but those are a minority in Europe.
I am so fucking disgusted (yet not surprised) by this dipshit traitorous worthless pile of shit government of Germany, bootlicking fascists all over the world. Once, in the 80s/90s I was naive enough to think we had learned our lesson. But turns out, Germans will happily flock back to fascism the moment being decent human beings slightly inconveniences them.
Yeah - I know - it’s a matter of brainwashing & capitalist propaganda, and this is not a problem unique to Germany, but I prefer to be disgusted at the mess in front of my own doorstep before complaining about others.
Leck Eier, Fritze.
Removed by mod
I get it is extremely important to remember how bad the transatlantic slave trade was, but I think reparations after two centuries makes no sense. You cannot track responsibility 10 generations separated, you cannot track beneficiaries in a globalized world. Countries not involved in slave trade got indirect benefits through commerce, countries involved are instead not benefiting today from that historic trade. Slavery was common everywhere in the world for millennia. I find it hard to even begin to quantify a reasonable approach to a reparation framework that would work in the context of all the human tragedies in the last 5 centuries.
Instead of throwing up my hands waiting for someone else to ratify a framework, I personally give substantial direct financial support to an African American family, not because I feel personally responsible for what happened 200 years ago, but because I know that what happened 200 years ago didn’t end 200 years ago but continued on and eventually became Jim Crow and eventually became the War on Drugs and all the while has just simmered there as subconscious racism. It affects them all day every day every time someone looks at them, every time they board an elevator.And alltogether it has unfairly advantaged me and disadvantaged them. I can’t even imagine the mental stress of being a black American over the last several years. And the entire 200 years we’ve been abusing and short changing these people, they have paid us back in unique gifts of art, music, and literature (on top of their everyday contributions to science, industry and education like everyone else makes too). I pay because it’s the least I can fucking do to help and say “someone sees, someone cares.” I give because I can, and never had to face what they face. I give because it’s their money.
You do you.
You don’t have to look at everything in terms of individual responsibility. We can clearly see that the injustices caused by transatlantic slavery, and imperialism more broadly, are very much still here. I think it would be nice to try to remedy this.
Of course, it’s non-binding, and the countries that should probably be paying reparations just happen to have all abstained (except for the rogue USA of course, voting against) so I don’t expect anything will happen. But it’s a nice idea.
are the descendants of the enslaved people still suffering from it? are the descendants of the enslavers still benefitting from it? yes?
then reparations should be paid.
I think at this point it would be better to focus on providing things like universal healthcare, education, and retirement, to everyone, keeping the cost of living in check, and working on ensuring opportunities for dignified labor and fair compensation are available to everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity.
That alongside rigorous policy measures to reduce (with a mind towards eliminating) things like workplace discrimination, redlining, racial profiling, etc.
There are some examples where the descendants of enslaved people can trace their heritage to their enslaved ancestors, and identify the descendants of their enslavers (often generationally wealthy business tycoons who own factories that pollute the neighborhoods of the enslaved people’s descendants…). The people of Africa Town near Mobile, Alabama are a prime example, and there’s a pretty good documentary about it.
In those cases, where there is a demonstrable chain of ancestry, yes, civil law should require the descendants of the enslavers to pay reparations to the descendants of the enslaved.
But so many times it happens that everyone wants to paint with a broad brush, where there’s no room for nuance, and say things like “all white people should pay reparations to black people.” And that’s just too clumsy and would never work.
One, because not all white people are generationally wealthy descendants of enslavers, so such a blanket policy of collective punishment meets the definition of racism. Two, because there’s no way to quantify in abstract terms how much money “every white person” owes to “every black person.”
It’s better to focus on making society better as a whole, filling in the gaps where racial disparity still exists (by lifting up the disenfranchised, not by tearing down the privileged), making the wealthy pay their fair share to the government’s coffers, making the government ensure robust social safety nets which benefit everyone who needs them, and only demanding reparations in specific cases where there is a direct link between the descendants of enslavers and the descendants of the particular people they enslaved.
It’s been too long, and who exactly are you going to blame or get reparations taken from? Hell; If memory serves it was other black people who were gathering up and selling the black people into the slave trade. What you gonna do? Give $40 a piece to 50,000,000 black people, along with an I’m sorry card?
How do you determine who is descended of enslaved and enslaver? How do you identify who is benefitting today for something that happened 500 years ago? How do you deal with people that descend from both enslavers and enslaved? There is a long thread about this. Ultimately it is not possible to do what you are asking. Should a farmer in Turkey pay for the benefit the ottoman empire got from slave trade to a white looking mixed american of west african descent? You realize how stupid that sound?
the states would be paying those reparations, not the people individually
european states should pay reparations to the nations they colonized and enslaved, and colonial states (the usa, canada…) should pay reparations to their colonized populations.
And where do ‘the states’ get their money? Taxes. You’d still be taxing the people to pay for reparations
so? why should they live in the comfort their enslavement created while the majority of third world countries contend with poverty caused by their continued imperialism?
Do you realize the immense hypocrisy in your argument? Collectively punish a group of people, who did no wrong, based solely on where they’re born because people hundreds of years ago were dicks.
reparations are a form of wealth redistribution.
do you think taxing billionaires is “collective punishment”? but, oh no, what if some of them inherited that wealth 🥺 it would be so unfair to punish them by taking it away 🥺 all of that for what, the crime of being born into wealth? oh no, those poor, poor billionaires 🥺
do you not realize the immense hypocrisy of yours?
collectively punishing the majority of the world today from consequences of their shit, just so they don’t have to take responsibility for it?
it may or may not be their fault as individuals, but the state of colonies and neocolonies is still their responsibility as a country.
the states would be paying those reparations, not the people individually
Where does the state get that money? An eternal mystery
‘If white, then pay reparations’ is their answer
black people live in slums in my colonial country and many of the exploited african nations.
start by letting them access to at least 20th century amenities and dignified work instead of finding every moral excuse not to.
this thread is full of sensitive westerners born on slave trader countries still rich on the spoils (and sometimes still benefiting from it).
I am a westerner, born in a non slave trader country that never existed before the 1860s. The country before was not a slaver country. The country before that was client state of a slaver country, but just for 20 years! The one before that was not a slaver country. Going event further the country before that was still not a slaver country. Then it was not even a country and still not a slaver one. This until the 1200s when we abolished slavery, so I guess that before then slavery was somewhat ok, but was white people slaves so I do not think that counts.
I think we never became rich on the spoils. We were definitely richer in the 1200s (we were so rich we paid for the slaves to be free!) and for some centuries after that. That was definitely our golden age I would say. Post war recovery after 1960 was also good, but mainly driven by local mechanical industries, not spoils I am afraid.
I am a westerner, born in a non slave trader country
contradictory so far
You will make many friends in the Baltics or the Balkans I am sure.
your lack of understanding of history does not constitute contradiction
your racism does not constitute understanding of history.
I have said nothing racists, so which part of history is incorrect?
the part where you think black people don’t deserve any kind of help for still being fucked by western racism, with the excuse you can’t keep track of it.
the “you are a white westerner” part was an educated guess based on that opinion.
I agree there are challenges with economic reparations but I do want to point out that the transatlantic slave trade was different from slavery as practiced throughout human history.
It was more cruel than even slavery practiced in ancient Greece and Rome (civilizations which Western nations like to harken back to).
European colonial powers firmly believed in and propagated a global race based caste system. This itself is a crime against humanity but they put into practice the subjugation of people with darker skin, defining them as less human as justification for their enslavement.
Throughout history many civilizations thought other peoples to be inferior or barbaric. But there has not been a global race based caste system based on complexion as colonial era Europeans practiced it.
Entire fields of false science such as phrenology and eugenics sprung from this dogmatic belief in skin tone defining ones worth. The culmination of this vile ‘purity’ ideology was Nazi Germany and even with the end of that movement, we have not seen the end white supremacist ideology.
This is a very unique problem that still has horrific reverberations to this day. I would not be so quick to absolve European colonial powers and their descendant nation states who still benefit from neocolonialism today. Reparations is a complex issue but I think verbal acknowledgment of accountability and an honest teaching of history would be a start in those nations that have been ongoing beneficiaries of these inhumane institutions.
To summarize, I’ll leave you with quotes representative of the worldview of one of the most revered figures in modern colonial/Western history:
"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror."
"I think we shall have to take the Chinese in hand and regulate them… I believe that as the civilized nations become more powerful they will get more ruthless, and the time will come when the world will impatiently bear the existence of great barbaric nations who may at any time arm themselves and menace civilized nations."
Winston Churchill
The only reason they didn’t have an Atlantic slave trade earlier was that they didn’t have the technology to do so earlier, there was virtually no transatlantic trade beforehand.
I don’t think it was a particularly cruel time. My ancestors didn’t have transatlantic trade, but they were among the cruelest people on Earth of any time. They certainly would have been Atlantic slave traders if they were able to, no doubt.
What worth remembering is that the transatlantic slave trade was uniquely inhumane because of 1) scale 2) mortality during transport 3) classification as chattel (essentially non-human property) 4) basis in a race based caste system. Other systems of slavery throughout human history did not operate in such an inhuman manner.
While I agree in part with the sentiment, I think is totally unfair to consider ancient slavery in Greece or Rome as less cruel. It was not less cruel depending on the slave in question. Slaves in mines and agricultural estates were in worse conditions then anything in American south. But if you were an educated slave then your life was indeed better. That also means that was common for slaves in ancient Rome to be able to buy freedom. Slavery was everywhere in society, so the comparison is really hard to make.
There is indeed a racial component in colonial slavery that was not present in ancient Roman slavery. A slave could be from Germany or from Syria and there was no difference in treatment.
I would say that both late trans-atlantic slavery and nazism share a philosophical root in the eugenetic movement, but both grew in parallel with different motives: in one case a justification for economic exploitation, in the other an ideological tool to enforce unity in nationalism.
The transatlantic slave trade started before the concept of race and the eugenetic movement. During the 15th century the justification was more routed in religion and the idea of having prisoner of war being better then to kill the enemy. Still and excuse for economic exploitation, but maybe more akin to what the greeks and romans were doing.
We can go back and forth about the living and working conditions of various peoples held in bondage through history. I think if we really got down to it we’d find that those subjugated by the transatlantic slave trade had it worse in many ways but I’d like to come back to a few central points.
-
This was a slave trade on a scale never before seen in human history. 15 to 20% died in transport.
-
On arrival, people were completely stripped of their identity and personhood. They could not marry, they could not have families. They could not testify in court. They could be killed with a degree of impunity. They were non human property. This is not how slavery was practiced in Greece Rome or in more modern Islamic empires.
-
The status of being a slave was inherited from one’s parents (also not the norm).
-
The European colonial powers / slave traders developed a global race based caste system to justify all this. You’re right that it started on a religious basis but that doesn’t justify what it morphed into. We have white supremacists engaging in terrorism today because of this heinous ideology that they chose to normalize.
I think Ghana has a point by bringing this UN resolution to a vote and it’s pretty telling that the US, Israel (and Argentina because of Milei) voted no and every European nation abstained while 123 of 178 countries voted yes. That gives us a good sense of what majority of the world thinks and perhaps where the truth lies, though I understand why the West would want to stay in a bubble / safe space when this discussing this matter.
That resolution is just virtue signaling. It adds non binding untenable principles like an hierarchy of crimes against humanity and reparation across centuries for something that was not an international recognized crime at the time (while we agree it was terrible).
On the countries that voted yes we have:
- Brazil: the biggest slaver country in the trans-atlantic trade (5 million people vs 400K for the US, just to give you some numbers). It abolished slavery in 1888, the last countries in the americas to do so.
- Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, all part of the trans-saharan trade that trafficked between 10 and 18 million african (20% to 25% died in transport on the saharan route). All of three very very late in abolishing slavery, in 1962, 1963 and 1962 respectively. The 1926 league of nation (like the UN) slavery convention was created to stop the Hejaz slave trade centers that connected the arab world with multiple slave routes in africa and asia.
- Turkiye was the major player in the crimean and black sea slave trade (up to 2 million slavic slaves). Turkiye abolish slave trade in 1857, and slavery in general in 1924.
- Algeria, Tunisia and Libya (also in the trans-saharan trade): the centers for the barbary slave trade (1 to 1.25 million people), captured from the costal villages of italy, spain and france. They banned slavery very late, 1848, 1846 and 1912 respectively.
I do not want to engage in whataboutism, that is not my point. My point is that this vote is full of hypocrisy. We are not voting for change, we are voting for scoring political points on easy propaganda at home (west bad, we good). While I hate the US, I found that the fact they opposed the resolution and the reason why they opposed the resolution was at least honest. None of the countries above that voted yes will do anything in terms of reparation, and they are not required to.
Finally, I have to correct you on something you said: both in the Roman Republic and Greece (Sparta) was legal to kill your slave without justification.
It was legal to kill your slave in America also as long as it was “by accident” and this was justified with biblical passage.
Freeing slaves was much more common in ancient Rome than it was in the transatlantic trade or ancient Greece.
Freed slaves could also qualify for citizenship in ancient Rome while for a century in the US they were either nonpersons or infamously 3/5ths of a “real” person.
As for those that perpetuated slavery in Brazil, it’s well established that Portugese settlers upheld the institution. How did Portugal vote? I wonder why. Now that Brazil is a democracy and those that were subjected to that cruelty have a voice - well that explains why they voted yes, doesn’t it?
I won’t contest any of the dates you’ve brought forward. But I will reiterate that slavery in the Middle East was closer to how slavery was practiced historically. European colonial powers turned slavery into something uniquely and monstrously inhumane so it’s understandable why these nations would prefer to hide from that truth. They created a global race based caste system to justify it, which has been a stain on human morality since then. At least there’s hope in the fact that the majority of the world sees it for what it truly was.
123 nations representative of 75% of the global population agreed with this proposition. It’s convenient to say they all did it to score political points and make a statement. But when representatives of 6.35 billion people say this was uniquely bad (considering all the horrific things that happened in their countries due to colonialism and other tyranical regimes), it may be time to stop and self reflect (for the countries that voted no or abstained).
Sorry, but you totally ignored my points. Did you not understand what I said and why I said it?
Why are you trying to say that the millions of African dead in the Sahara are somewhat to be ignored as slavery in the Arab world was more traditional? You are continuing to dismiss spartan and repubblican Rome slavery as humane when we already established that it was worse in mines and villas (when it was also your right to kill the slave with no need for a workaround?). You are trying to dismiss more than 60 years of free and independent Brazil supporting slavery? Portugal was a kingdom, now is a democracy, why you want to keep today people of Portugal accountable for the actions of kings 20 generation separated by modern Portuguese, but you will not keep accountable descendent from the same people living in Brazil? What is the logic here?
My opinion is that in those 123 nations there are lot of hypocrites that have promoted slavery to the milions of dead in the past but will not pay for the reparation in the preposition nor intend to take responsibility for any wrongdoing of the past. That is my point. Why the double standard? They are just dishonest. If European said “Yes” they would have just lied like all that other nations I cited above lying by saying “Yes”.
The most important point is that slavery practiced by European colonists is specifically designated as chattel slavery because it was uniquely cruel and inhumane compared to slavery practiced in the rest of the world and historically.
Referring to 123 nations representing 6+ billion people as hypocrites is a convenient and dismissive argument. The West can live its bubble / safe space but we know what the rest of the world thinks.
The broader world seems to understand that this cannot be oversimplified into whataboutisms, simple dualisms or be reflected upon without nuance.
The West is welcome to bring its own resolutions but I’d advise against it because if we’re going to keep track of all of the genocides, displacements and chattel slavery commited by one people onto another in the past 500 years it’s going to be a PR nightmare for them.
The colonial forefathers of many Western nation states knew this which is why they sought the destroy evidence of their wrongdoings. A more blatant example of this is Britain’s Operation Legacy. British colonial officials had a tendency to open fire on unarmed civilians (often women and children) and they tried to cover up countless examples of this and other immoral acts. They firmly believed in that race based caste system they helped create, which I mentioned earlier. So even if they were killing innocent non-white people, it didn’t quite matter to them since they weren’t really people from their twisted perspective.
A group of elderly Kenyans who were subjected to rape, torture and castration in British detention camps in the 1950s actually won a case against the British government in 2013 and were paid a $30 million dollar settlement distributed to 5228 people. They even had to fund a memorial to the victims in Nairobi.
Unfortunately most colonial atrocites are past the ‘statute of limitations’ so to speak so I agree that reparations would be complex. I’m just glad that the world sees European transatlantic chattel slavery for what it was and, even if it’s hard for modern Westerners to accept, at least they know how the rest of the world sees it now too. The first step to justice is acknowledgement.
-
I think it would be reasonable to consider reparations for individual descendants of slaves. There are plenty of people alive today that can prove their descendance from a slave.
Reparations to entire countries in Africa seems a bit absurd to me.
Europeans and other monarchy-states are happier still feeding aristocrat and noble pigs, you mean? Yeah, I hear you.
Actually they can easily restitute African countries for the immense damages they were caused.
But restituting the victims of slavery is inconvenient for the empire, while an atrocity like the Holocaust can be abused to fund and raise support for Israel.
That is easy because the Holocaust was between 1941 and 1945 and reparation were between 1952 and 1953. It is the same government, the same people, the same generation. The atrocity is clearly defined in time and space, and can be somewhat measured. Nonetheless, even in a “clear as day” situation, lot of opposition came to be part of this process, with this being a very difficult agreement to reach. Doing that 200 to 600 years apart, across multiple nation, multiple people, multiple culture, is borderline impossible and would settle anything. You cannot make it just for the hebrews with that reparations, you cannot with slave trade either. Same apply to WW2 reparation, Mongol conquest reparation (sound silly just to think about it), or induced famine in China and the Soviet Union.
Removed by mod
Transatlantic slavery is easily traceable to the countries which committed it and which suffered from it. The time period is irrelevant. In fact Israelis are primarily the Jews which didn’t suffer from the Holocaust because they went to colonize Palestine instead of staying in Germany. So your argument works against you.
Should today citizen of Portugal (under the 1976 Republic) be accountable for the legal (at the time) actions of the Portuguese Crown? Should the citizen of Benin be accountable for the atrocities committed by Dahomey to secure the slaves from nearby tribes? Are the people of Benin both beneficiary and responsible for that? How much? Should Brazil pay for the action of the Portuguese Crown? Should Italy pay because the Republic of Genoa bankers benefited from the loans and contracts with the Portuguese merchants? How much is an Italian descendent from a Venetian born in today Croatia responsible for the sins of Genoese banker that finances the Portuguese crown to pay the Imbangala people to capture slaves?
Yes they should at least pay some reparations. Now why is Germany sending money to Israel?
reply to the entire question if you can, and bring a reasonable justification about who and how much should pay to who. We have Italian descendent from Dalmatia, we have Brazilian descendent from Portugal, we have people from Angola descendent from Imbangala, Benin people descendent from Dahomey, that needs to pay how much to other people from Angola and Benin?
Countries in Africa are still suffering from the consequences of Western slavery. The entire countries as a whole, not taking into account the people. The only reason Africa is still underdeveloped is because of Western slavery and colonialism.
(Primarily black) communities in the West could also be given restitution funds to make up their deficiency in socio-economic status caused by past discrimination
Except that many of the descendents of the people who suffered most from slavery are now citizens of the countries which “committed it”, if by that you mean the countries which enslaved them. So telling the US to pay reparations to Ghana would in effect make descendents of enslaved people in the US pay reparations to the descendants of the people in Ghana who weren’t enslaved.
Add to that, as someone else pointed out, the people who actually captured Africans in Africa to sell to the European enslavers, were other Africans, often from rival tribes.
So not only would it mean US descendents of enslaved people would pay reparations to countries of descendants of non-enslaved people, but they’d actually be paying it to people who are in some cases the descendants of the people who captured their ancestors.
There’s no way to do this with precision, and people need to stop calling it racism every time someone points that out.
And guess what? The people living in those countries are still the most systematically disenfranchised and discriminated against of the population. Frequently getting the blame for all the problems caused by the right-wing politicians, white people keep voting in.
And the countries of their ancestors are still in shambles from the slavery and colonialism. So returning is not an attractive option.
That doesn’t change the fact that saying “the US should pay Africa reparations” misses the mark by a long shot.
And the countries in Africa are in shambles for many reasons, but the transatlantic slave trade is a relativey small part of that. Try colonialism more broadly, especially ivory trade and gemstone mining. Try the rivalries and warlords that colonial powers left in their wake when they left. Try harsher environmental conditions, harsher epidemiological condition, harsher pests and parasites.
There’s lots of reasons QOL in most of Africa is among of the lowest in the world, but transatlantic slave trade mainly affected the African diaspora, who today are mostly citizens of countries that you’re suggesting should pay Africa reparations. It’s an overly simplistic attempt at a solution which ignores reality in favor of convenient half-truths.
Also, I never suggested returning as an option. You’re just full of red herrings, aren’t you?
Argentina, United States, and Isreal voted against.
and 52 abstentions, including the UK and EU member states.
canada, australia and new zealand also abstained
Them: “Hold my beer.”
Not going to dispute this other than to say that it’s “the gravest crime against humanity in MODERN TIMES.”
In past times, enslaving the populations of entire conquered nations or villages was common. Bringing slaves back to Rome was a regular part of an Army’s return. Enslaving one’s neighbors has been extremely common across the globe, since the beginning of humanity.
Beyond slavery, there have been marauders like the Huns or the Khans, who would attack a city, and kill every single living thing, and then move on the the next one.
Unfortunately, there are lots of candidates for the award.
In past times, enslaving the populations of entire conquered nations or villages was common. Bringing slaves back to Rome was a regular part of an Army’s return. Enslaving one’s neighbors has been extremely common across the globe, since the beginning of humanity.
This is true, but not all Slavery is equivalent. All of it is obviously awful, but in the ancient world, conquering your neighbors provided an easy way to acquire more land and agricultural labor to feed a growing population of citizens. Enslaved people were not enslaved forever, and it was more akin to indentured servitude than chattel slavery. Rather, enslaved people would eventually be free, and become citizens of Rome, for instance, with more or less the same rights as any other citizen.
Chattel slavery, on the other hand, was inedibly unique, as far as historic slavery is concerned. People were now being enslaved, for life, based on the color of their skin, shipped off across a continent, and their descendants were also slaves upon birth, and those descendants were bought and sold as commodities on an open market.
Chattel slavery required the invention of modern notions of race to be invented, in order to justify it, which has had ongoing social impacts that extend far beyond the relations of production which birthed it.
I feel like creating an entire system dedicated to mass-murdering people industrially because of their origins or convictions is still the worst thing we’ve done as a species. Slavery is in the top spots, for sure, but it’s not “let’s create an industry solely dedicated to murder a specific ethnic group in the most efficient way possible” levels of crime against humanity.
Like, it has no economic benefits, it’s not for personal gain, it’s not because of lust or any human impulses, there is no reason to it apart from “let’s eradicate a part of humanity just because I said so”.
Valid.
Probably easy to convince someone its justifiable when life was so difficult.
Now we buy rotisserie chicken from Walmart, dump the trash in a landfill, and virtue signal people in the past who lived in a north korean style hellscapes.
Yeah, but it wasn’t hereditary in Rome, lots of slaves did manage to achieve freedom, anyone could end up a slave and it was always a minority of the population. It was still messed up and they still abused them really badly or fatally at times, but it wasn’t as bad as the American style of slavery.
Sparta’s style was closer, though, and there’s other examples; it’s not like the system was without precedent. It also raise the whole question of the medieval and Arab slave trades. There isn’t really a good demarcation between them and the Atlantic trade, and of course they themselves would have roots in classical times.
Beyond slavery, there have been marauders like the Huns or the Khans, who would attack a city, and kill every single living thing, and then move on the the next one.
There’s reasonable evidence the Mongols, at least, liked to kill civilians, but you have to be careful about taking the historical accounts of their enemies at face value. Unlike in many of the wars between agricultural civilisations, both sides didn’t have literature of their own for us to draw from.
Trans-atlantic slavery was worse because it maximally exploited the humans as cattle. A quick death is much more convient than a lifetime of suffering.
I’m not going to argue which is worse, slavery or watching centuries of your entire culture destroyed in a day, along with every person in your life, before dying yourself. There are no winners in that argument.
rome wasn’t even physically capable of enslaving that many people as the african slave trade did.
Not just Rome, but Egypt, and every other nation, or whatever they were back then.
“they did it so we can too” is not the flex you think it is.
That’s not what I was saying, and you damn well know it. I mentioned Rome, and you seized on that to make an illegitimate point, which I countered that Rome wasn’t the only civilization participating in slavery, and you took that as an opportunity to accuse me of being soft on slavery, which is really, really stupid.
Highly disengenuous.
that’s exactly the point you are making though.
“we can’t help africa because the romans did it too! and then everyone will want restitution!”
if I believed that, I would say that, but I don’t believe that, and I didn’t say that. I will not engage with a liar who places their own words in quotes, and attributes them to me.
Done with you.
no, just some of the infamous whataboutism.
no other empire has ever enslaved as much, or is still rich off of slavery. no “b-but rome”
Gravest crime so far
The US would owe several times it’s worth in reparations for slavery, The War on Drugs, The destruction of the Middle East, Imperalism leading to the deaths of countless people, genocide of Native Americans, poisoning the world multiple times with chemicals, etc. The list is so long it isn’t funny.
I often say if you were to list all the atrocities and lives destroyed by the US it would be more than my lifetime just to read them all off. It is mind boggling.
You can say the same about any western European country also. Some of those things America did dont happen without western Europe
Yeah, I get they have done some awful things. I think Spain, with the conquering of the Caribbean and Mexico, did kill quite a few people. While some will call it genocide others will argue it was disease that did most of the work.
Personally, I view it as a genocide because their intentions to kill and subvert the natives was clear and just because their diseases got them first doesn’t suddenly absolve their intentions. They came to conquer and tens of millions of people died as a result.
A more recent example is the UK with India. Estimates are pretty wild here. It depends on if you attribute mismanagement and the resulting famines to the UK which, honestly, I think is fair. This could be one of the greatest losses of life ever with estimates from 55-100 million.
There is a debate here and that is do we count unintentional deaths or only deaths that are directly attribute to a malicious action. This becomes a gray area for some people. I personally don’t like to pull punches just because a country rolled a snowball that lead to an avalanche.
Leaded gas for example, which was invented in the US, has killed around 1-5 million people a year for a very long time (almost a hundred years of widespread use) While not all lead poisoning deaths are from gas, the majority is. We are looking at a half a billion people on the high end and people are still dying in the millions to this day.
Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the US poisoning the world with chemicals. While you can say the blame is shared by all countries that participated, there is no denying the US invented and proliferated them to begin with.
We still don’t understand the implications of things like forever chemicals and micro plastic which have invaded the body of every single human alive. People don’t realize how bad it really is or perhaps they just accept reality for what it is without thinking critically about the situation.
Nay sayers can of course say there wasn’t intent and it is just the byproduct of technology development. While this is a compelling argument for some when you research it you find out the scientists at the time did have misgivings where they knew of problems to begin with or shortly after proliferation.
A great example of this is global warming. The US petroleum scientists knew about this back in the 1950’s. 70 years later we are still denying the reality that global warming will displace billions of people in the coming century. This will become the greatest loss of life from any single event ever.
There is a huge debate around responsibility that will always rage on from people who don’t want to claim responsibility for economic reasons. Look at the most recent vote of no by the US at the last UN meeting where they attempted to recognize slavery as one of the greatest human rights abuses that needs reparations.
Intention is important and that is where the US shines above all in the modern era. The two largest human executions in a single event in history was the fire bombings of Tokyo and the dropping of the Atomic bombs. These were intentional and done to a civilian population.
The US related military actions have killed more than any other country in modern times. Being the number one producer of arms the US has brought destruction on a scale that no civilization could even imagine previously.
The world crafting the US engaged in is truly epic and started on their back porch with the Native Americans. What made the US so great is extermination. Imagine any single European country having access to the fertile landmass that is the current US. This is why American Exceptionalism is such a joke.
Only it wasn’t their land. It had millions of people on it. Unlike the rest of Europe (besides the UK) the US had no intentions of sharing the land or respecting treaties. Even tribes that assimilated like the Cherokee were eventually forced from their lands. It was a purposeful genocide because the reality was such an abundance of land was easily shareable.
The US greatness was built on an unholy combination of genocide, slavery, and thievery on a scale that had never been seen before save maybe from the Mongols or Rome.
Only they were ancient history, we have already been enlightened by this time. We understood natives needed be protected not exploited. This intention despite the knowledge of its wrongness is really the heart of the matter and what some would call truly evil.
Our world crafting didn’t just stop with sea to shinning sea native genocide. No other country has come close to orchestrating the number of regime changes like the US in the last 70 years. In particular waging a subversive war against perceived leftists was particularly egregious causing millions of deaths over supposed ideological differences.
All this wasn’t possible without the industrial military complex. The greats like Henry Ford perfected the assembly line laying the groundwork for the industrial military complex as we know it today. An industry built on the death on suffering of humanity. Please don’t take this as hyperbole though.
Henry Ford was fond of the Nazi party. He donated to them much like many other wealthy US industrialists. Hitler looked up to the US and modeled his genocide of the Jews after the Native American genocide.
Initially Hitler wanted to expel the Jews. He sent envoys to many other countries asking to take the Jews in. This did not sit well with the wealthy industrialists like Ford. They lobbied hard and successfully ensured that the US did not take in the Jews. What is worse is they also lobbied the rest of Europe stoking ant-jewish sentiment to not take the Jews in.
This lead to the final solution, but the logistical calculations were beyond the Nazi Empire. That is when US companies like IBM stepped up to the plate to help with the census. Yes, the numbers tattooed on the Jews wete developed by IBM processing power. IBM then helped to figure out how many Jews could be shipped to their death daily so as not to backup the death camps.
This is a common theme throughout history with the US having their fingers in so many atrocities, not just with other countries but their own citizens as well.
I totally get that the US came from Europe but it has taken their imperalism and turned it into an art form of destruction. The US is responsible for the most deaths and suffering in history and they are still going strong with no signs of remorse or faltering.
Here’s the biggest problem with reparations…
Most slaves were captured and then sold by other africans from competing kingdoms or tribes, to the europeans who would then take them across the atlantic.
Giving reparations to current africans would actually be like rewarding the original slavers.
I think this might miss the point of reparations
I thought the point of reparations is not to “pay off” a historical wrong, but instead is meant to help offset the generational of disadvantage caused by slavery and racism to those who suffer from that legacy today
we need all kinds of changes to end cycles of poverty and generational trauma, and reparations is just one tool among many to help with that - but it’s more about fixing the broken thing now than about absolving guilt
Well, sure. But a lot of developed nations already have a lot of programs aimed at doing that.
Also, as someone has said somewhere in this discussion, who exactly would receive reparations? It’s not exactly an easy thing to ascertain.
yes, I do think reparations has many problems with it - ideally it would be a matter of transitioning wealth accumulated through slavery from the people who benefited from slavery to the people who suffered under slavery. We are generations away on both sides, but it’s not like the effects haven’t certainly enriched some while hurting others even today.
Usually when I hear about reparations, the idea is to use tax money to do it, but at that point a lot of the people paying the taxes for reparations are also the victims of generations of slavery, so … I dunno, doesn’t feel like the most targeted or ethical approach.
And yes, who do we decide who receives reparations? Is it just for slavery, or are we going to recognize the way slavery and racism are intertwined and related?
What about reparations for other racist choices, like segregating Black communities and building interstates through their communities, polluting and robbing those communities of health, wealth, etc.?
Again, reparations is just one tool. I’m not sure you can really argue that racism has been properly dealt with or solved, or that reparations has no place in a program of racial and social justice, even if we can pick out logistical difficulties.
Further, why does it feel like you are against this project of justice, rather than for it?
I’m against reparations because, as you said, it would be unfair on both sides.
The people that would be taxed (the majority) probably never benefitted from it, at least not directly. I can give you an example. On my father’s side we made a family tree reaching all the way to the 17th century, and there were no rich landowners or noblemen. It’s highly unlikely they owned slaves. Should my family pay for reparations?
Now, if you can accurately trace slave owning people and their descendants are still wealthy, then by all means…
What I’m saying is it can’t be a blanket measure.
Also, if we europeans must pay, then the arabs better pay up as well.
And then you have the question of who receives the money. Africa is rife with corruption. I wouldn’t want the money to go to some corrupt government official. But how would you trace the exact people or families who should receive the money? What if the family who was enslaved mixed with the family/tribe/kingdom of the slavers? Then what?
I’m absolutely for helping Africa, but it just can’t be this fantasy notion of reparations because it’s not feasible.
Hm, my point wasn’t that reparations is unfair to both sides, but that there are better and worse ways to go about it.
Regardless, I think measures that aim to fix economic inequality and wealth distribution, and particularly efforts that are rooted in morally defensible arguments about repairing the harms caused by slavery and racism are noble and worthwhile. I’m even happy for imperfect versions of this where the US government pays reparations using tax money - it’s a much better use of my tax money (whether I personally benefited from slavery or not) than a lot of the villainous stuff the US currently does with my tax money.
Besides, the positive outcomes are alone worthwhile.
Typically I think of reparations as being sent to those who can show their lineage goes back to African slaves in the US, in which case it’s usually African-Americans who are the primary beneficiaries of reparations, not bureaucrats in Africa.
The way you are thinking about reparations makes me think you are not very keen on projects of social justice in general. Maybe you’re just jaded or cynical about the possibility for justice to be handled fairly, but I think we should be motivated to supporting and finding paths forward that help people whether they are perfect or not, and I just don’t get that vibe from you.
I am keen on social programs. Social welfare programs, which in fact I consider fundamental in a developed society.
I just don’t see reparations as a good social program.
They do have these programs but they barely scratch the surface or even contra the damage currently being done to the communities in question.
It’s not exactly easy but it’s not exactly impossible either. Of course, not you necessarily, someone could keep declaring it impossible to do no matter much the subject is researched.
For example, we can see that the communities effected by this have had far less investment than places that benefitted. The way to fix a severe lack of investment is through significant investment. There’ll be more, of course, but that’s an easy one right there.
I’m definitely not against giving more money in these programs, or widen their scope. I do think we have a moral obligation to help, in general. If you are better off, that is.
But where do reparations stop? There’s hardly a place on this planet who wasn’t taken advantage of, or hasn’t taken advantage of another.
I mean, we’ve barely started. I don’t think it’s time to think about when we should stop. But, if we have to, it’ll be when it’s finished.
But a lot of developed nations already have a lot of programs aimed at doing that.
Programs like “we bomb the shit out of you”, “climate catasthropy”, “unlimited global apartheid on the world’s exploited masses”?
Who generated the demand?
That’s an entirely different point. But they were already slavers before the europeans increased demand.
I would say the biggest problem right now would be finding African countries that can be trusted with using this money to actually improve lives of their citizens.
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024
Some are only fairly corrupt. Most are very corrupt.
This is just a complete lie what the hell
Which part? That Africans captured other Africans? Definitely not a lie… Europeans didn’t go to the interior. They showed up at the western coast, anchored offshore, and bought captives from mercenaries or tribal warlords who had brought conquered Africans from the interior to the coast specifically because there was a customer (horrible I know) to buy them – the European slavers waiting in their ships. Port towns grew wealthy and powerful as the “portal” to African slaves.
Slave Ship is a good (and brutally dark) book about this.
They did show up at the shores and took slaves. Then they found out they could sell guns and arm mercenaries to do it for them for even more effective slavery. And they killed anyone who resisted them.
Just because they armed and hired middle-men to do the dirty work on the shores (and only because it was cheaper for them to do this) doesn’t absolve them from being the cause these people were transported into slavery.
Next you’re gonna argue slavery only started in Africa when the first europeans started doing it, completely ignoring the centuries of arab slave trade before that, and centuries after europeans outlawed it, and which likely enslaved as many people.
The truth is, it was an awful thing with a lot of different parties involved for different reasons, throughout a very long period.
Slavery had always existed. Institutionalized slavery was an exclusively European invention. Frightening how little people know about it and how much they’re willing to defend it https://review.gale.com/2025/04/08/african-slavery-vs-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/
How convenient you chose to ignore the exact paragraph from that link that touched very lightly on what I said:
“In stark contrast, the trans-Saharan slave trade introduced chattel slavery where enslaved individuals were the property of their enslavers with no rights and their status was inherited by their offspring. This system stripped individuals of any agency and autonomy which reduced them to mere commodities.”
Arabs enslaved millions for a much longer period of time (all the way up to the late 20th century), raped the women, neutered the men, literally denying milions of a future generation from existing.
But I don’t see anyone asking them for compensations.
Strange you stopped reading there.
Indigenous African slavery was typically localised whereas the trans-Atlantic slave trade functioned on a more industrial scale by forcibly transporting millions of Africans to the Americas to meet labour demands of plantation economies.
Institutionalized slavery was an exclusively European invention.
Whoever told you this, stop listening to them. They are not to be trusted
Every historian ever.
You means the egyptians didnt have institutionalized slaving? Really?
Not in the same way. Even ancient Egypt considered slaves human and they had some rights, whereas trans-atlantic slavery fully reduced slaves to the level of animals. Egypt also didn’t start invasions primarily to capture slaves and use them on their plantations.
While you’re technically correct, trans-atlantic slavery had countries literally running their economies on slaves which is what I meant.
Well you’re conflating “how it happened” with “who’s to blame”.
Obviously the European slave trade was the prime mover for regional African warlords capturing would-be-slaves in the interior and of course this doesn’t absolve the European slavers of anything lol
I don’t understand why people just knee-jerk reply like this without actually researching what they’re denying. It’s a pretty well-known fact that most of the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade came from African warlords and slavers (or at least I thought it was). I don’t thin that’s a particularly strong argument against reparations though.
They were armed and trained by the West and acted as Western mercenaries. This is like blaming neo-colonialism on the countries suffering from it because the West installed a puppet government there.
“My source is I made it the fuck up” - you
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/31/epiloguetothedebateonslav
The single most important - and also, alas, the most overlooked - causative factor is the gun. Once African tribes that formerly fought with bows and arrows or spears were introduced to the devastating nature of the musket, the cannon and the Gatling, all bets were off, so to speak.
Apart from directly hiring their own mercenary armies to go into the interior of Africa to kidnap slaves and pressgang them into the purpose-built slave forts, the European slavers would go to Tribe A and say to its leaders: “Look, we only came here to buy your gold, as we’ve been doing for years. But Tribe B has sent emissaries to us, asking us to sell guns to it. Now, we know that you are their immediate target, having fought them in terrible wars not so long ago. Because of our friendship for you, we have told them we have no guns. For now.”
The only part of your original statement that is accurate according to your article was that they were armed by the Europeans. People actually by the European-trained raiders making up a small part of the total slave exports as stated in your provided article.
Europeans slavers being manipulative doesn’t excuse the actions of those who sold them slaves, all it means is that human beings are all capable of great evil. It kind if reminds me of blockbusting in the US during the 20th century. Just because the real estate agents were playing on the racist fears of the white homeowners doesn’t excuse white flight.
I do kind of take issue with the original commentor trying to handwave reparations because of this fact, but we don’t need to try and whitewash (yeah I know) the actions of anyone involved.
The slavery was only possible because they were armed and agitated by the Europeans. Get out of here with your filthy victim blaming revisionism
“the West” as a concept didn’t exist in the 17th century.
It’s the truth. Sorry? Do you think the slave traders were parking outside Africa, ranging across the continent, and grabbing people with big nets?
no, it’s even more perverse. they were the ones creating the economical incentive.
They were armed and trained by the West and acted as Western mercenaries. This is like blaming neo-colonialism on the countries suffering from it because the West installed a puppet government there.
They were armed and trained by the West and acted as Western mercenaries. This is like blaming neo-colonialism on the countries suffering from it because the West installed a puppet government there.
Why are you using Cold War propaganda terms to describe something that happened before Marx was even born?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/31/epiloguetothedebateonslav
The single most important - and also, alas, the most overlooked - causative factor is the gun. Once African tribes that formerly fought with bows and arrows or spears were introduced to the devastating nature of the musket, the cannon and the Gatling, all bets were off, so to speak.
Apart from directly hiring their own mercenary armies to go into the interior of Africa to kidnap slaves and pressgang them into the purpose-built slave forts, the European slavers would go to Tribe A and say to its leaders: “Look, we only came here to buy your gold, as we’ve been doing for years. But Tribe B has sent emissaries to us, asking us to sell guns to it. Now, we know that you are their immediate target, having fought them in terrible wars not so long ago. Because of our friendship for you, we have told them we have no guns. For now.”
That has nothing to do with my comment. I’m talking about your use of the word “the West” everywhere. You’re confusing entire centuries. This is back when Russia was a monarchist empire too, for example.
Why?
Why are you spreading racist propaganda over the entire thread to excuse Western slavery? What does the article I linked start with?
