|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Slavery reparations from European nations
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I hope they will. But the city of Liverpool was basically built from the slave trade, so it wasn't just individuals who profited. The states also benefitted directly.
The slave trade from the UK was dominated by the biggest ports facing in the right direction, Liverpool and Bristol most of all. Liverpool benefited more than any other port in the UK. For a time, from the 1750s onwards nearly half its trade was in some way connected to the Atlantic slave trade. Many personal fortunes were made there, as they were in ports in other European countries.
The last slave ship sailed from Liverpool in 1807 though. It's extremely challenging to identify people or groups in Liverpool, or in the wider UK who now enjoy benefits derived from personal fortunes made and spent many generations ago.
To what extent would it be reasonable to hold people in Liverpool who were making their fortune 200+ years ago responsible for (as you put it in relation to the African traders) "everything that happened after that point, in countries they'd never heard of or been to" to great great grandchildren of those slaves.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
To what extent would it be reasonable to hold people in Liverpool who were making their fortune 200+ years ago responsible for (as you put it in relation to the African traders) "everything that happened after that point, in countries they'd never heard of or been to" to great great grandchildren of those slaves.
Do you feel that all British people personally had blame placed on them and money taken out of their pocket in relation to the Kenyan Mau Mau settlement? I suspect not.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
However, my point is that the suffering in the European colonies was indeed terrible, hands down, but there was immense suffering also within Africa at the time. As many died getting to the shore as those from the trip and arrival. Also, the Afro-Portuguese Pombeiros who ran and profited from the slave trade in Congo were of mixed descent. You cannot say that Africans were not consciously involved in the suffering of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The prisons in Loanda were as dark, narrow and infested as those in America, and the slave drivers along the Congo river as brutal if not worse.
I don't like the sound of "well it was just as bad or worse over there" to mitigate wrongdoing.
But to addres the rest, look at the history of African nation states post-independence and you will see plenty of historical ethnic conflicts and rivalries played out in the long line of coups and dictatorships that have happened.
The Americo-Liberians oppressed the rest of the country and we all know what happened to them as a result in the 1990s. I'm not sure that it can be successfully argued, that the groups in Africa who were also involved in oppression, forced labor, and violence in the 18-20th centuries, have not received any retribution for those actions within a local context.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Wait, so now it's possible to replace money with... karma??
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
There's a much simpler position here which is to say that none of us are magically entitled to more of the world's goods than others. So to the extent that some of us have had very good luck in being born into comparative wealth, we should share with those who have had very bad luck in being born into comparative (or absolute) poverty. You don't need to make a case for moral culpability to hold the view that the inequities in the way the world's wealth is currently disposed are unjust, and doing what we can to change this would be the pursuit of justice.
Isn't it possible that the attempt to turn global inequity into an issue of moral culpability will reduce people's willingness to do what common humanity requires of us - to share with each other?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
About fifteen years ago, some statisticians and sociologists did a detailed study of the records of slave ships that sailed from five ports in west Africa. These ports accounted for most of the slave trade to the New World.
An issue of The William and Mary Quarterly was devoted to articles on many different aspects of this data. I have read the journal; unfortunately I cannot remember the exact date; it was around 2001.
One point the study showed was that very few slaves were kidnapped. Some of them had been born into slavery in Africa; others were convicted criminals or prisoners of war; still others were political enemies of a local ruler.
Another interesting point was that only one of the five ports embarked large numbers of female slaves. The other four embarked almost exclusively men. A modern African sociologist explained this by saying that in the regions served by those four ports, agriculture was carried out entirely by women. In the area served by the one port, men were far more important in food production.
It is also interesting that the female slaves went almost exclusively to 'British North America'; e. g. what is now the U. S. and Canada. Since the child of a slave woman was a slave, but the child of a slave man and a free woman was not, the U.S. was the only place where large numbers of children were born into slavery generation after generation.
The estimated numbers are also interesting.
Approximately 450,000 went to 'British North America'
Approximately 2,000,000 went to North Africa.
Approximately 3,000,000 went to the Caribbean.
Approximately 7,000,000 went to Brazil.
I would like to locate a copy of that journal so I could re-read it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
To what extent would it be reasonable to hold people in Liverpool who were making their fortune 200+ years ago responsible for (as you put it in relation to the African traders) "everything that happened after that point, in countries they'd never heard of or been to" to great great grandchildren of those slaves.
Except that we're not talking about actions by descendants or ancestors. One of the conceits of nations is that they're the same entity across time. It seems a little disingenuous to maintain that (to pick one example) the modern UK has an ironclad claim to Gibraltar because of a treaty signed in 1713 while also claiming that the slave-trading concession in the same treaty was granted to a completely different UK than the modern state that owns Gibraltar.
[ 13. March 2014, 12:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
To what extent would it be reasonable to hold people in Liverpool who were making their fortune 200+ years ago responsible for (as you put it in relation to the African traders) "everything that happened after that point, in countries they'd never heard of or been to" to great great grandchildren of those slaves.
Do you feel that all British people personally had blame placed on them and money taken out of their pocket in relation to the Kenyan Mau Mau settlement? I suspect not.
I'm not entirely sure how the question follows from the part of my post you've quoted.
But to answer the question, I think that it was right and proper for the UK Government (representing the UK as a whole) to acknowledge that employees and contractors of the UK Government had acted culpably and shamefully in the 1950s, and to pay compensation to the actual victims of that action for their actual loss and suffering.
That does seem different to expecting the UK Government (representing the UK as a whole) to pay compensation to the current governments of countries where some of the great* grandchildren of people who were victims of slavery live, in relation to the loss and suffering of their long dead ancestors, suffered centuries ago at the hands of private individuals also long dead, some of whom were British nationals though acting entirely personally and for their private benefit.
If the true aim of this campaign is the laudable one of convincing those of us in the world who are relatively affluent to share more fairly with those who are not, I question the benfit of beginning the process in the way they have.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
That does seem different to expecting the UK Government (representing the UK as a whole) to pay compensation to the current governments of countries where some of the great* grandchildren of people who were victims of slavery live, in relation to the loss and suffering of their long dead ancestors, suffered centuries ago at the hands of private individuals also long dead, some of whom were British nationals though acting entirely personally and for their private benefit.
That's the other half of the equation. Were the governments requesting reparations themselves harmed by the actions of the slave-holding or slave-trading government, or are they at least a reasonable proxy for those who were? Given that governments are exactly the kind of social tools we use to solve collective action problems like the aftermath of slavery, it's at least a plausible argument that they are.
There are, of course, gradations of where this analysis is applicable. At one end of the scale we've got Haiti, where the government was formed directly as a result of a slave revolt. (One of the very few historical instances where this has occurred. Few slave revolts are successful, and for those which are "success" usually comes in the form of escaping the territory of the enslaver, not kicking out the enslaver and setting up a government.) In that sense the Haitian government seems like a pretty good proxy for the formerly enslaved. Plus there's the matter of the previously mentioned indemnity, which was extracted by the government of France directly from the government of Haiti.
At the other end of the scale are nations where the post-independence government continued the policies of enslavement, such as the United States or Brazil. (Not Caribbean nations, but they're the most obvious examples that come to mind.) These governments would seem like particularly poor proxies for those hurt by slavery.
On another note, I question whether things like using government troops to crush slave revolts really qualify as "private individuals . . . acting entirely personally and for their private benefit".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
While we're on the subject of money, and treating slavery as a phenomenon, does the UK get a rebate for the amount of money spent on the Royal Navy squadrons that spent time cracking down on slavery after its abolition in the Empire?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I'm not entirely sure how the question follows from the part of my post you've quoted.
It was because of your reference to the "people of Liverpool." No, the people in Liverpool today are obviously not responsible for what was done in their city 200 years ago. Restitution for wrongdoing on behalf of a state or government is not the same as blaming individuals born many years after the events.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
But it's the individuals who will have to pay.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
While we're on the subject of money, and treating slavery as a phenomenon, does the UK get a rebate for the amount of money spent on the Royal Navy squadrons that spent time cracking down on slavery after its abolition in the Empire?
Well, perhaps if the British had been forced to do that against their will, and if it had imposed a majorly debilitating effect on their economy, you could make the case.
Otherwise, your implied argument strikes me as like saying "Why should I pay compensation to the women I maimed for life as a result of my drunk driving last year? Nobody compensated me for the day I took off work to help an accident victim get to the hospital last week."
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
Part of the problem surely is that money doesn't come from nowhere. If for example the UK government were to make a significant financial settlement to the countries requesting it, presumably the people of the UK as a whole, and based on current policies probably the more vulnerable in society in particular, would be the ones to feel some of the effects of that money not being available to spend elsewhere on public services or whatever. Not saying that this is a reason not to do it, I don't know enough about the subject to have a clear opinion on that. But clearly the government of a country making a large payout is bound to have some kind of effect on the individuals within that country in some way or another.
[ 13. March 2014, 13:21: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Wait, so now it's possible to replace money with... karma??
Not at all.
But it's also not possible to claim "Africans got rich from slavery too and no one wants to get justice for it" when one doesn't have a clue about African politics, history, or demographics.
How about this:
African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade
quote:
The Civil Rights Congress of Nigeria has written to tribal chiefs saying: "We cannot continue to blame the white men, as Africans, particularly the traditional rulers, are not blameless."
Which is what I've been saying all thread - Africans KNOW that they were involved in the slave trade. That has absolutely nothing to do with what Europeans did. And to assume that no one has sought justice or restitution against the people who perpetrated it, without making the barest minimum of effort to actually confirm it, is at best lazy and at worse indication of a pre-existing bias that some people feel does not require evidence to support.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Part of the problem surely is that money doesn't come from nowhere. If for example the UK government were to make a significant financial settlement to the countries requesting it, presumably the people of the UK as a whole, and based on current policies probably the more vulnerable in society in particular, would be the ones to feel some of the effects of that money not being available to spend elsewhere on public services or whatever.
It would almost certainly come right out of the Department for International Development's aid budget, probably reallocated from some other countries. The likelihood of British people facing a higher tax bill as a result of this is extremely unlikely, given that there is already a set amount of funding put aside for foreign aid.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
So which aid projects do you think should be cancelled to pay for this claim?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
On another note, I question whether things like using government troops to crush slave revolts really qualify as "private individuals . . . acting entirely personally and for their private benefit".
That is a fair point, though I feel that a much stronger argument is the immense compensation paid out by the Crown to British subjects deprived of their "investments" in slaves when owning those slaves was made illegal. That's the argument that I think plays most strongly for the "reparations lobby" (if you pardon the expression, I don't mean it to be offensive). However I don't think it overcomes the huge practical difficulties in actually assessing what reparations might reasonably be due (if any) to the very remote descendants of slaves to compensate them for the harm inflicted on ancestors centuries ago.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
But then that would presumably lead to a cut in aid to other places, so taking from one set of people in need to give to another set of people in need. How do we make decisions about who's need is greatest? What if other countries have greater development needs, should they in effect be deprived of the aid they would have received through no fault of their own because of this? Again I don't have an answer, I just think it is very complicated!
(Reply to Seekingsister )
[ 13. March 2014, 13:27: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
I'm not entirely sure how the question follows from the part of my post you've quoted.
It was because of your reference to the "people of Liverpool." No, the people in Liverpool today are obviously not responsible for what was done in their city 200 years ago. Restitution for wrongdoing on behalf of a state or government is not the same as blaming individuals born many years after the events.
Then I think perhaps you had selected the wrong paragraph from my post for your quote. But thank you for explaining.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Part of the problem surely is that money doesn't come from nowhere. If for example the UK government were to make a significant financial settlement to the countries requesting it, presumably the people of the UK as a whole, and based on current policies probably the more vulnerable in society in particular, would be the ones to feel some of the effects of that money not being available to spend elsewhere on public services or whatever.
This is, of course, part of the argument as to why reparations are justified in the first place: that a large chunk of the productive capacity of various nations was forcibly and criminally extracted and ended up in the coffers of the governments of various slave-holding and slave-trading nations. In other words, one of the reasons for the poverty of many Caribbean nations is that for so many years their productive capacity was being used to pay for "public services or whatever" in Spain, France, Portugal, etc.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
But that money is not simply freely available to be handed back if it has been spent? And spent a long time ago at that. (I'm really thinking about the practicalities here rather than the question of whether it should be done or not.)
[ 13. March 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
But that money is not simply freely available to be handed back if it has been spent?
Maybe we should just give them Liverpool and Bristol.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
Do you think they'd want them?! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
But that money is not simply freely available to be handed back if it has been spent? And spent a long time ago at that. (I'm really thinking about the practicalities here rather than the question of whether it should be done or not.)
As the Haitian Indemnity demonstrates, a series of payments (with interest accruing) is the usual way governments handle such things when they don't have cash on hand.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
So which aid projects do you think should be cancelled to pay for this claim?
This post signifies a fundamental lack of understanding about how the aid budget works.
Most of the money "spent" on aid is actually allocated and disbursed over many years. A reclassification of aid already set aside for Caribbean nations in the future would have no impact on any current development projects.
[ 13. March 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
That's interesting, could you explain a bit more?
Oh, you just did! So it would simply be a case of the same money that they would have received being given a different label?
In which case is this more about the acknowledgement of responsibility than the actual money? But how does that make any practical difference to the lives of those in living in the Caribbean now?
[ 13. March 2014, 13:49: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Not completely comparable, but let me tell the story of the Diocese of Cariboo (Anglican). It was created in British Columbia in 1914 and went bankrupt in 2001. The bankruptcy was due to paying for the settlement and legal costs for the Indian Residential School within the diocese.
None of the parishioners as far as I know actually had ever worked at the schools, the school had long closed. Many parishioners were people who'd come from other places long after the school closed. Yet, the reparations and settlement was paid.
Why not a parallel for countries? Part of the equation is the ability to pay after all. What's the biblical, the seventh generation? Rough calculation could put that in the 200 year range couldn't it?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Canada exist from the theft of native resources. It benefits now, why should recompense be given a time limit?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
Interesting. How did the parishioners feel about the situation? Did they resent that they were in effect paying for someone else's mistakes in the past or did they feel a sense of responsibility by virtue of now living in the area where this had happened?
I think that many people in the UK today would feel very little connection with what was done in the past or recognise the long term effects in all the countries that were involved, both as beneficiaries of the trade, or those whose people were taken and those where they ended up. Maybe that is due to some failure in our teaching of history?
[ 13. March 2014, 13:59: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think that many people in the UK today would feel very little connection with what was done in the past or recognise the long term effects in all the countries that were involved, both as beneficiaries of the trade, or those whose people were taken and those where they ended up. Maybe that is due to some failure in our teaching of history?
Speaking only for the US, I think this is definitely the issue. Americans have this myth of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" which is, of course, precisely that-- a myth. But a pervasive one that plays itself out in a common narrative, particularly among the wealthy, that whatever they have achieved/ acquired is a result solely of their own hard work, as well as the reverse assumption that the poor are poor only due to their own moral failings. This despite the fact that Lincoln tried (in vain) with great eloquence to demonstrate, for example, how the North had benefitted economically from slavery just as much as the South had. As we have seen here, any discussion of trans-generational reparations is going to have to confront that assumption that our current prosperity has nothing to do with the actions of our ancestors (whether biological or simply geographical).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
So which aid projects do you think should be cancelled to pay for this claim?
This post signifies a fundamental lack of understanding about how the aid budget works.
Most of the money "spent" on aid is actually allocated and disbursed over many years. A reclassification of aid already set aside for Caribbean nations in the future would have no impact on any current development projects.
I'm not sure why 'spent' was put in inverted commas, but anyway...
If money has already been allocated to the Caribbean, then what is the point of the exercise? It would mean that money that was due to be spent in, say, St Lucia ends up being spent in St Lucia, surely?
Either that, or extra resources are allocated to pay for this claim. If the DFID budget remains static that means that projects elsewhere that would have been funded no longer receive that funding.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As we have seen here, any discussion of trans-generational reparations is going to have to confront that assumption that our current prosperity has nothing to do with the actions of our ancestors (whether biological or simply geographical).
And as long as people see no connection there is unlikely to be the political will to do it. Politicians in my experience are unlikely to choose a route which will cost the country money for no perceived good reason or benefit in the eyes of those whom they hope will vote for them.
[ 13. March 2014, 14:45: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You know nothing about me and my long involvement with Africa, including having a considerable knowledge of an African language and having been involved with an African translation project.
Fascinating. Which African language? Which translation project?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
right and proper for the UK Government (representing the UK as a whole) to acknowledge that employees and contractors of the UK Government had acted culpably and shamefully in the 1950s, and to pay compensation to the actual victims of that action for their actual loss and suffering.
That does seem different to expecting the UK Government (representing the UK as a whole) to pay compensation to the current governments of countries where some of the great* grandchildren of people who were victims of slavery
What if you could show that lasting harm had been done to those countries which still affected the great grandchildren?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As we have seen here, any discussion of trans-generational reparations is going to have to confront that assumption that our current prosperity has nothing to do with the actions of our ancestors (whether biological or simply geographical).
And as long as people see no connection there is unlikely to be the political will to do it. Politicians in my experience are unlikely to choose a route which will cost the country money for no perceived good reason or benefit in the eyes of those whom they hope will vote for them.
Yes. Which is why it's so important to confront that ingrained assumption that our prosperity is all our own as a first step (at least in US. I don't know to what degree this is a factor in Europe). Again, one of those known complexities that I alluded to in my original post.
When we talk about trans-generational reparations, there's several aspects of the discussion, all of which are getting moshed together here:
1. The moral aspect of it-- is there a debt that is owed? What does justice require?
2. The pragmatic aspect of it-- how difficult will it be to enact these reparations on a practical level?
3. The political aspect of it-- is there the political will to do this? What are the implications of giving a large sum of money to a (potentially untrustworthy) govt? Will it reach the people most affected by the original crime?
These are all inevitably intertwined, so it's hard to talk about one w/o talking about the others. And yet moshing them together tends to obscure the discussion-- the practical difficulties (which are HUGE) or political issues (equally challenging) don't really alter the moral obligation. But any discussion of #1 tends to inevitably slide into #2 or #3. We are "fixers"-- we can't even begin to think about a moral obligation w/o trying to think about how we will "fix" it. Then when we begin to sense that it may be "unfixable" we want to use that to argue against the moral obligation. But that is a false logic.
[ 13. March 2014, 15:30: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
That's a very clear explanation cliffdweller, thanks. I expect that sort of intertwining often occurs with various decisions and we ought to be more alert to it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm not sure why 'spent' was put in inverted commas, but anyway...
Because what DFID says it "spends" in a given year is really "money allocated for the local country office that may be drawn down if we approve the future requests for funding." Actual cash out the door is a fraction of the headline figure each year.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If money has already been allocated to the Caribbean, then what is the point of the exercise? It would mean that money that was due to be spent in, say, St Lucia ends up being spent in St Lucia, surely?
Either that, or extra resources are allocated to pay for this claim. If the DFID budget remains static that means that projects elsewhere that would have been funded no longer receive that funding.
It's pretty obvious that the likelihood of CARICOM getting any sizable payment in regards to this claim is extremely slim. So this is all very hypothetical.
I just raised the point so that people understand the mechanics of aid. There is already a system in place, the government would not have to charge taxpayers more to pay a settlement like this. They'd use their accountants to reallocate funds that were already approved for future spending so as to avoid it.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's pretty obvious that the likelihood of CARICOM getting any sizable payment in regards to this claim is extremely slim. So this is all very hypothetical.
Yes, which is why I incline to the view that it's unpleasant gesture politics.
quote:
[QB] I just raised the point so that people understand the mechanics of aid. There is already a system in place, the government would not have to charge taxpayers more to pay a settlement like this. They'd use their accountants to reallocate funds that were already approved for future spending so as to avoid it.
But you accept that, were this to happen, someone somewhere would lose out?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I have always thought, that if a nation is primarily secular, the wrong done by that country in the past is the justification for being involved in a long term aid programme.
What I wish, is that that justification was more widely stated, when as soon as we have some sort of challenge at home: e.g. floods; and people start to suggest we cut the aid budget.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
[qb] It's pretty obvious that the likelihood of CARICOM getting any sizable payment in regards to this claim is extremely slim. So this is all very hypothetical.
Yes, which is why I incline to the view that it's unpleasant gesture politics.
People's reactions seem to point to it being unpleasant largely because it is something they'd rather not be reminded about.
It appears to me that some people get offended at the very thought that there may be structural inequalities as the result of various historical actions - inequalities that they may well have benefited from.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Interesting. How did the parishioners feel about the situation? Did they resent that they were in effect paying for someone else's mistakes in the past or did they feel a sense of responsibility by virtue of now living in the area where this had happened?
I think that many people in the UK today would feel very little connection with what was done in the past or recognise the long term effects in all the countries that were involved, both as beneficiaries of the trade, or those whose people were taken and those where they ended up. Maybe that is due to some failure in our teaching of history?
The situation as I recall it (wasn't in this diocese, though know people who were), is that it started out with denial that there was really anything bad to compensate for, followed by 'okay things happened but had nothing to do with us', to 'the lawyers and gov't say we have to pay', to 'we have a cultural and spiritual connection through our tradition, so we have to stand up and do it'. In amongst this, the Anglican Church officially apologized nationally (as did the RC and United*).
*United Church of Canada: formed in 1925 from most Canadian Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregationalist churches, but not all.
I think the situation is one of denial and not even accepting there's an issue worthy of discussing compensation for. Time will tell if discussion and education about it will move it forward. It may take formal court processes, and maybe some seizure of assets.
Here's a link about church involvement and ownership in slavery The Anglican Church and Its Slavery Past as the USPG celebrates 310th Anniversary: Is an Apology Enough?
Maybe Anglicans should consider their responsibility like they did in Cariboo?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But you accept that, were this to happen, someone somewhere would lose out?
By that logic criminals with young children would have a good defense against paying fines.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What if you could show that lasting harm had been done to those countries which still affected the great grandchildren?
The more intervening generations there have been, the harder in practice it must become to show that quantifiable aspects of hardship and poverty being suffered by an individual in 2014 in a Caribbean country are attributable to a wrong done to an unknown ancestor some time between 1640 and 1807. I think that for all practical purposes that is an insuperable hurdle and that is why the campaign has seemed to me to be flawed. It can't achieve its stated aim because that is impossible, and knowing that to be the case I think those leading the campaign would do better to state what their real intention is and to campaign honestly for that.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
The more intervening generations there have been, the harder in practice it must become to show that quantifiable aspects of hardship and poverty being suffered by an individual in 2014 in a Caribbean country are attributable to a wrong done to an unknown ancestor some time between 1640 and 1807.
But it's relatively easy to quantify things like the tax revenue that flowed into government coffers from slave-based Caribbean enterprises, as are tariffs levied on the importation of slaves themselves, if it's the lack of hard-quantity numbers that you see as the primary obstacle. Governments are usually very meticulous about keeping tax records. The question becomes whether such slave-generated revenue was rightfully derived, or if it just makes the state a co-conspirator.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
From the link I posted above, could the Diocese of Exeter pay back £13,000 they received for over 660 slaves in today's money when they were compesated for the freeing of their slaves in 1833? This site pegs it at £1,235,000.
Of course that 1.2 million doesn't take into account that the slaves themselves didn't get any money themselves. But it is a start.
If Barbadoes had 83,000 slaves at emancipation in 1833, I think we could consider that the compensation to owners is the floor, or lowest level. Would 1 million per slave be too little? I am thinking this is how they might start their discussions.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
.... Yet the reason why we hear few demands for 'reparations' from the descendants of the Arab trade in slaves is because it didn't give rise to black communities, languages and cultures. The women were used mostly for sexual and domestic services, and the men either became eunuchs or soldiers. Babies born to the female sex workers were frequently put to death, or else they simply merged into the surrounding society. The slave plantations of the New World, in contrast, housed male and female slaves together, and the owners often encouraged them to 'breed' with each other.
I've from time to time speculated about this. As far as I know there aren't significant black or partially black communities of people descended from slaves in the Gulf or anywhere else in the Middle East, where one might expect to find them. One explanation I've heard is that there wasn't an Indian Ocean middle passage and a lot of their slaves ended up working on plantations run by Arabs on the East African coast.
Yes, some would have been used for plantation work, although this was just a small minority or them. But I've read that some East African slaves even reached as far as India, and there's speculation that one community of dark skinned Indians with distinctive cultural habits might be descended from some of those slaves. But on the whole, the intention wasn't to create slave societies.
quote:
Svetlana, if your explanation is right, are you suggesting this means that the Arab slavers were better or worse than Transatlantic ones? Being castrated as an adult isn't something I'd like to experience. It also carries quite a high risk of killing the asset. But then, I'm a bloke.
The castrations were carried out on boys of around 10 years old. The death rate was extremely high, so I've read.
It wasn't my intention to establish which one of these slave trades was 'worse' than the other. I think that would be somewhat tasteless and morally questionable. I merely wanted to correct the assumption that the North African trade in black slaves was somehow part of the Transatlantic trade.
It would obviously be very good to see the North African countries begin to face up to this aspect of their history, and some scholars are working on this.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
aunt jane
Shipmate
# 10139
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister
The obsession with African traders and their role in slavery again reads as an indication of a very nasty view on African people.
That accusation is appalling and I consider it libellous. If this was the hell board I would say something else about it.
You know nothing about me and my long involvement with Africa, including having a considerable knowledge of an African language and having been involved with an African translation project. I could dig up something from that language to demonstrate something about the indigenous slave trade of what is now Uganda, but I doubt it would make much difference.
You really ought to apologise.
Up to you.
It's patently obvious that this whole reparations nonsense is just yet another cynical act of opportunism to perpetuate the myth of "white people hate black people", and the sheer injustice of ignoring the role of Africans and Arabs in this heinous trade supports this interpretation. If we are going to have justice, then it demands that the guilt of all parties is considered. Selective justice is not justice. But, of course, if we are not selective, then we can't play the race card, can we? Which is really what this is all about!
This is a very demanding view of human justice. I'm sure most justice administered is to some extent selective, if only because it's only perpetrators who are actually caught who ever suffer anything.
I'm not sure what "race card" is supposed to be being played here in your opinion. Slavery has always existed and alas continues today, not always accompanied by any noticeable racial issues at all. The salient features of the transatlantic slave trade from Africa to the Caribbean, conducted by Europeans, were its sheer scale and the fact that at least one European nation continued to have the temerity to demand money from Haiti until relatively recently.
Posts: 97 | From: South East of England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
The more intervening generations there have been, the harder in practice it must become to show that quantifiable aspects of hardship and poverty being suffered by an individual in 2014 in a Caribbean country are attributable to a wrong done to an unknown ancestor some time between 1640 and 1807. I
Actually this - along with the reasons Creosos lays out above, make a very compelling argument that it should be the state that seeks and receives compensation.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
