Reply to: told you it was coming.

[vetran]

It's actually even more nuance than that.

Goods were manufactured from products made with slaves' labour. So if anyone in your family for example used sugar e.g. baker, chocolate maker they were profiting from slavery. (Even the Quakers weren't exempt.)

Also with more mixed ethnicity individuals in the UK there are more people who are the descendants of both slaves and those who profited from slavery.

Slavery is built into the fabric of modern Britain and this is what historians want recognised.

However activists asking for reparations have a problem as posts outlined on this thread point out. First exactly who do you compensate- you won't be compensating just people who are black? Then how much?

I completely agree that Slavery has had a profound effect on modern society, but so has the Monarchy (incestuous as it was), the feudal system, the industrial revolution and multiple wars.

I really welcome the stories coming out in Black history month proving our then colonies produced brave men and presumably women who volunteered to fight for King & Empire.

I agree paying reparations are a poor idea and one driven by individual greed. We have real issues that need fixing now lets work on them!

[vetran]

Nah I always thought it was a stupid argument.


There is a compensation scheme for coal miners - if they live long enough and know how to put a claim in that is.

what about their great,great grandchildren.

[SueEllen]

Oh so you lost the slave reparation argument so we move onto Empire.

Nah I always thought it was a stupid argument.

Which Empires covered the rest of the world? Do you know why the East India company had a standing army?

If we hadn't ruled a quarter of the world you would have been speaking German, Spanish or French (other Brutal Empires were available) now. The wealth we made (and sometimes stole) paid for its protection.

Most of the UK has an obvious legacy of coal mining. Most of the recent miners are now dying from dust induced cancer etc. and a hundred years ago they worked under duress in disgusting conditions that would be illegal now. Should we pay their great grandchildren compensation? I am fine compensating dying miners because we made them work in unsafe conditions, reparations maybe not.

There is a compensation scheme for coal miners - if they live long enough and know how to put a claim in that is.

[vetran]

You seem to ignore that Britain had a very large Empire covering a quarter of the world's land at done point, and some of the land the UK colonised in certain regions e.g. the Carribbean was mainly populated with black slaves.

And we are focusing on British involvement because we are in the UK. If we were in another European country who had an Empire we would be focusing on that country.

Oh and if you want a lone drawn under it you are going to have to wait another century as their are people in their 40s who were born on Carribbean islands that were still British colonies and so have a obvious legacy of slavery.

Oh so you lost the slave reparation argument so we move onto Empire. Which Empires covered the rest of the world? Do you know why the East India company had a standing army?

If we hadn't ruled a quarter of the world you would have been speaking German, Spanish or French (other Brutal Empires were available) now. The wealth we made (and sometimes stole) paid for its protection.

Most of the UK has an obvious legacy of coal mining. Most of the recent miners are now dying from dust induced cancer etc. and a hundred years ago they worked under duress in disgusting conditions that would be illegal now. Should we pay their great grandchildren compensation? I am fine compensating dying miners because we made them work in unsafe conditions, reparations maybe not.

[SueEllen]

Again the UK banned slavery within the British Empire in 1833 both trading and ownership. With some exceptions later eliminated in 1843.

Slavery Abolition Act 1833 - Wikipedia.

To do this the government bought the slaves off their owners (the slave owner compensation) that cost us 40% of annual GDP to do that which is why we were paying off over a century and half. So this is unlikely to be British owners.

The US and many other countries didn't by the way, this may be what you are thinking about?

Ah now that is a decent point, where there was rape. We have laws for that. Maybe rearrange the inheritance laws so slave descended children are deemed to have inherited and get the rights to the inheritance money that would get the slave owners spinning in their graves.

We need to be specific about the offences and as OG suggested maybe make some calculations. I disagreed with owner compensation I think we should have stopped that after a few decades when it was obvious that slavery thankfully was not coming back. If we hadn't paid it though the Slavery Abolition Act would not have passed so I see it as a worthwhile expenditure.

It's actually even more nuance than that.

Goods were manufactured from products made with slaves' labour. So if anyone in your family for example used sugar e.g. baker, chocolate maker they were profiting from slavery. (Even the Quakers weren't exempt.)

Also with more mixed ethnicity individuals in the UK there are more people who are the descendants of both slaves and those who profited from slavery.

Slavery is built into the fabric of modern Britain and this is what historians want recognised.

However activists asking for reparations have a problem as posts outlined on this thread point out. First exactly who do you compensate- you won't be compensating just people who are black? Then how much?

[AtW]

Wage slavery is still a bit of a problem these days

[vetran]

You don't get the nuance do you, a sizeable proportion of the Afro-Caribbean community are descended from slave owners, see Ainsley Harriot's 'who do you think you are'. When the slave 'trade' was abolished the owning of slaves wasn't. To propagate their stock slave owners and their sons would reproduce with them and in their eyes they were doing them a favour because the whiter a child the more privilege they had.

Again the UK banned slavery within the British Empire in 1833 both trading and ownership. With some exceptions later eliminated in 1843.

Slavery Abolition Act 1833 - Wikipedia.

To do this the government bought the slaves off their owners (the slave owner compensation) that cost us 40% of annual GDP to do that which is why we were paying off over a century and half. So this is unlikely to be British owners.

The US and many other countries didn't by the way, this may be what you are thinking about?

Ah now that is a decent point, where there was rape. We have laws for that. Maybe rearrange the inheritance laws so slave descended children are deemed to have inherited and get the rights to the inheritance money that would get the slave owners spinning in their graves.

We need to be specific about the offences and as OG suggested maybe make some calculations. I disagreed with owner compensation I think we should have stopped that after a few decades when it was obvious that slavery thankfully was not coming back. If we hadn't paid it though the Slavery Abolition Act would not have passed so I see it as a worthwhile expenditure.

[Gibbon]

FTFY, then stand back and listen to the squeals.

I'm safe as far as I know, my family never owned slaves.

You don't get the nuance do you, a sizeable proportion of the Afro-Caribbean community are descended from slave owners, see Ainsley Harriot's 'who do you think you are'. When the slave 'trade' was abolished the owning of slaves wasn't. To propagate their stock slave owners and their sons would reproduce with them and in their eyes they were doing them a favour because the whiter a child the more privilege they had.

[SueEllen]

No we change the law and from then on there are penalties for those that disobey the law , its how it works.

Strangely pertinent facts are not whataboutery even if you don't agree with them being mentioned. The African rulers being totally complicit in slavery is pertinent as is the trade being legal. I don't like either of those facts but they are true.

The British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade was to end it an slavery generally after millenia at considerable cost to the UK. Before that it was a totally legal enterprise indulged in by almost every country. If you want you can demand reparations from tobacco, alcohol and petroleum companies do tell us how you get on. If companies leaving those areas are given grants to change should we punish them?

We need to draw a line under it and deal with important matters. Slavery is still permitted in Africa and other areas lets abolish that.

Why just the British? it was endemic. Or are we just seen as an easy touch?

You seem to ignore that Britain had a very large Empire covering a quarter of the world's land at done point, and some of the land the UK colonised in certain regions e.g. the Carribbean was mainly populated with black slaves.

And we are focusing on British involvement because we are in the UK. If we were in another European country who had an Empire we would be focusing on that country.

Oh and if you want a lone drawn under it you are going to have to wait another century as their are people in their 40s who were born on Carribbean islands that were still British colonies and so have a obvious legacy of slavery.

[LondonManc]

Are individuals being targeted, or state and corporate entities?

If it's the state, then we're all being targeted surely?
If it's individuals, how do you achieve that acurately?
If it's corporate entities, they'll find a way of passing the costs on or lawyers will tie people in knots.

Do you think national debts should be written off periodically so that citizens of a country aren't laden with historic debts?

Tougher question - just gives anyone a licence to spend and not give a toss. Blair and Brown for example.

[vetran]

So the law is always right?


Only if you engage in whataboutery. We are talking about British involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade here not anything else.



We first need to work out the compensation the british public gave to slave owners plus how much individuals, companies, organisations and the British government profited from it.


More whataboutery.

No we change the law and from then on there are penalties for those that disobey the law , its how it works.

Strangely pertinent facts are not whataboutery even if you don't agree with them being mentioned. The African rulers being totally complicit in slavery is pertinent as is the trade being legal. I don't like either of those facts but they are true.

The British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade was to end it an slavery generally after millenia at considerable cost to the UK. Before that it was a totally legal enterprise indulged in by almost every country. If you want you can demand reparations from tobacco, alcohol and petroleum companies do tell us how you get on. If companies leaving those areas are given grants to change should we punish them?

We need to draw a line under it and deal with important matters. Slavery is still permitted in Africa and other areas lets abolish that.

Why just the British? it was endemic. Or are we just seen as an easy touch?

[Old Greg]

What next, sentencing someone to do time because their parent died before they were convicted?

Pretty much what’s being asked for here.

Are individuals being targeted, or state and corporate entities? Do you think national debts should be written off periodically so that citizens of a country aren't laden with historic debts?

[SueEllen]

Why? Just because it is distasteful and immoral, it wasn't illegal at the time in the UK or Africa. Never really liked the idea of

Droit du seigneur - Wikipedia

So the law is always right?

do we get some money back for Scottish maidenhoods?

Its a rabbit hole

Only if you engage in whataboutery. We are talking about British involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade here not anything else.

How much do we give them?

We first need to work out the compensation the british public gave to slave owners plus how much individuals, companies, organisations and the British government profited from it.

If we paid the going African king's rate for a slave in the first is the African Kingdom responsible for reparations? Do we pay the same as all the other slaving nations? etc.

As I say lets do IG Farben first.

More whataboutery.

[NotAllThere]

There must be a substantial amount of back pay owed to those who should benefit from the estates of those enslaved. Calculate it at an assumed number of hours per week at the then market rate for a farm labourer, domestic servant etc. Work out what the liability sum is first, and then work out who the beneficiaries and liable parties are.

I think it's a great idea. It could end up we're all in debt to each other. Then we could just reset the clock at zero and get on with life.

So you accept you're OK with historic war crimes if they were legal at the time and 'everyone was doing it'?

Nope. But I think what happens outside of living memory happened. We are where we are now.We know what was then was tulip. It's far too complex to unravel who did what to whom so far better look to the future than the past. No matter how good and virtuous it might make the activists feel.

[xoggoth]

Agree with what V said. Simplistic nonsense. Why should all Brits pick up this bill when many of their ancestors were also exploited by the rich, working in conditions hardly better than those endured by slaves? When the ancestors of many who would benefit from such reparations were themselves complicit in slavery?