4 ms·

"This is a straightforward case for reparations" - and there you have it. This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. Whe

"This is a straightforward case for reparations" - and there you have it. This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. Where do you draw the line - 1900? 1800? 1700? Ridiculous. It's the same with conversations about slavery - apparently the only relevant slavery is post 1700 African slavery which also ignores that Africans were participating slave traders - enough arbitrary constraints? How about domestic bloodbaths - English vs Scots, chattel slavery in middle ages Britain, ... what an absurd can of worms.

lostlogin 4y ago
> This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. What about confiscated land, taken in the last 100-200 years? New Zealand is grappling with it and it’s not without friction. However leaving it unaddressed seems completely unrealistic, you just allow the theft and profit at the expense of one race and profit for another? Here is a recent story on a small part of the grim saga. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/477765/ngati-maru-apology-highlights-ongoing-devastation-of-land-theft https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/477765/ngati-maru-apology-hig...
rramadass 4y ago
This juvenile argument is always brought up when it comes to the subject of Reparations owed by The British, but unfortunately for its proponents, holds no water. This is simply an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for gutting the Colonized Countries in all dimensions viz. Economically, Socially and Culturally. Here is Jason Hickel (one of the authors of the posted article) on The Case for Reparations - https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/10/13/the-case-for-reparations https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/10/13/the-case-for-rep... In particular; read his rebuttal to the five commonly used arguments (including yours) in the latter half of the above article. Some more articles for your edification; 1) https://qz.com/1911783/what-the-uk-owes-in-reparations https://qz.com/1911783/what-the-uk-owes-in-reparations 2) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-to-know-about-calls-for-reparations-for-britains-legacy-of-slavery-in-the-caribbean https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-to-know-about-calls-... 3) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/world/americas/colonial-reparations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/world/americas/colonial-r... Some excerpts from all of the above links: 1) W. Arthur Lewis, a Nobel Prize-winning economist from St. Lucia, had argued since the 1930s that colonialism had gutted the economies of colonized societies for generations to come, making the debt one of not just repayment but also of reconstitution. 2) India wasn’t “developed” under British rule – it was de-developed. And not just in terms of social welfare. British policy was designed to destroy India’s domestic industries by imposing asymmetrical tariffs, by dismantling the institutions that trained up producers, and in some cases even by maiming skilled artisans – all to create captive markets for British goods. During the course of British rule, India’s share of the global economy shrank from 27% to 3%. 3) Frantz Fanon had it right when he wrote, in Wretched of the Earth, that “Colonialism and imperialism have not settled their debt to us once they have withdrawn from our territories. The wealth of the imperialist nations is also our wealth. Europe is literally the creation of the Third World.” 4) “The sequel to that history of repression and disavowal has been poverty and uneven progress. So calls for reparations consider this wide story and its micro-level consequences in their activism,” Smith said. 5) “There’s no real ownership of responsibility. So there is recognition that what happened in the past was bad, but we’re not responsible now,” said Moffet. “It’s a way of sort of separating the monarchy or British government from the past.” 6) And then it strikes you…. Then it strikes you that there is not enough money in all of Britain to compensate for these injustices. And you realize, that if Britain paid reparations – real, honest, courageous reparations – there would be nothing left. Britain would not exist. And that is exactly what people find so terrifying about the question of reparations. It’s not that they fear the actual prospect of paying. It is that even just thinking about what is owed reveals the hard truth: that what is owed, is everything.
kweingar 4y ago
> This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. Where do you draw the line - 1900? 1800? 1700? I’m interested where you draw the line in the other direction. 1900? 1950? 1980? In 1980, most people alive today had not yet been born. Suppose a country took out a loan in 1980 and have made minimum payments since then. Can a young new leader of that country validly refuse to pay the remainder of the debt because they shouldn’t owe anything for a previous generation’s actions? Suppose a country confiscated land from some people in the 1950s, and those people fled the country. In 2022 is it too late to demand the land back? Suppose that two nations declared a treaty of alliance in 1900. In 2022, one of the nations is attacked. Can the other party to the treaty claim that they are not bound to any agreement made by their long-dead ancestors?
defrost 4y ago
Britain is A-OK with long term reparations. Mind you, that's for capitalist slave owners denied of "their chattels" .. not as compensation to those affected. > the British government spent £20 million, a staggering 40% of its budget in 1833, to buy freedom for slaves. > That’s equivalent to approximately £20bn today, making it one of the biggest ever government bailouts. > The cost was so high, the vast loans the government took out to fund it were only just paid off in 2015. [1] No slaves were apologied to, returned home, back paid, trained for future employment, etc. [1] https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200205-how-britain-is-facing-up-to-its-secret-slavery-history https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200205-how-britain-is-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/12/treasury-tweet-slavery-compensate-slave-owners https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/12/treasu...
ashwagary 4y ago
Does the same state that legalized and profited from US slavery still exist? Yes. Since the damages can be quantified, the descendants are illegible to sue for them. Same goes for Indians and the Chinese where the UK and US is concerned. >How about domestic bloodbaths - English vs Scots, chattel slavery in middle ages Britain, ... Go ahead and pursue damages if you are affected and the liable state still exists. The Chinese, Indians, Africans Americans, and Native aren't going to do the work for you.
yummypaint 4y ago
There are many companies that have been in continuous operation and directly benefited from slavery. An example is Aetna in the US. These organizations are legally people, so they absolutely should be responsible for reparations based on their past activities.

lostlogin 4y ago

> This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. What about confiscated land, taken in the last 100-200 years? New Zealand is grappling with it and it’s not without friction. However leaving it unaddressed seems completely unrealistic, you just allow the theft and profit at the expense of one race and profit for another? Here is a recent story on a small part of the grim saga. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/477765/ngati-maru-apology-highlights-ongoing-devastation-of-land-theft https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/477765/ngati-maru-apology-hig...

rramadass 4y ago

This juvenile argument is always brought up when it comes to the subject of Reparations owed by The British, but unfortunately for its proponents, holds no water. This is simply an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for gutting the Colonized Countries in all dimensions viz. Economically, Socially and Culturally. Here is Jason Hickel (one of the authors of the posted article) on The Case for Reparations - https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/10/13/the-case-for-reparations https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2018/10/13/the-case-for-rep... In particular; read his rebuttal to the five commonly used arguments (including yours) in the latter half of the above article. Some more articles for your edification; 1) https://qz.com/1911783/what-the-uk-owes-in-reparations https://qz.com/1911783/what-the-uk-owes-in-reparations 2) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-to-know-about-calls-for-reparations-for-britains-legacy-of-slavery-in-the-caribbean https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-to-know-about-calls-... 3) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/world/americas/colonial-reparations.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/27/world/americas/colonial-r... Some excerpts from all of the above links: 1) W. Arthur Lewis, a Nobel Prize-winning economist from St. Lucia, had argued since the 1930s that colonialism had gutted the economies of colonized societies for generations to come, making the debt one of not just repayment but also of reconstitution. 2) India wasn’t “developed” under British rule – it was de-developed. And not just in terms of social welfare. British policy was designed to destroy India’s domestic industries by imposing asymmetrical tariffs, by dismantling the institutions that trained up producers, and in some cases even by maiming skilled artisans – all to create captive markets for British goods. During the course of British rule, India’s share of the global economy shrank from 27% to 3%. 3) Frantz Fanon had it right when he wrote, in Wretched of the Earth, that “Colonialism and imperialism have not settled their debt to us once they have withdrawn from our territories. The wealth of the imperialist nations is also our wealth. Europe is literally the creation of the Third World.” 4) “The sequel to that history of repression and disavowal has been poverty and uneven progress. So calls for reparations consider this wide story and its micro-level consequences in their activism,” Smith said. 5) “There’s no real ownership of responsibility. So there is recognition that what happened in the past was bad, but we’re not responsible now,” said Moffet. “It’s a way of sort of separating the monarchy or British government from the past.” 6) And then it strikes you…. Then it strikes you that there is not enough money in all of Britain to compensate for these injustices. And you realize, that if Britain paid reparations – real, honest, courageous reparations – there would be nothing left. Britain would not exist. And that is exactly what people find so terrifying about the question of reparations. It’s not that they fear the actual prospect of paying. It is that even just thinking about what is owed reveals the hard truth: that what is owed, is everything.

kweingar 4y ago

> This whole idea of reparations for things done by previous generations is absurd. Where do you draw the line - 1900? 1800? 1700? I’m interested where you draw the line in the other direction. 1900? 1950? 1980? In 1980, most people alive today had not yet been born. Suppose a country took out a loan in 1980 and have made minimum payments since then. Can a young new leader of that country validly refuse to pay the remainder of the debt because they shouldn’t owe anything for a previous generation’s actions? Suppose a country confiscated land from some people in the 1950s, and those people fled the country. In 2022 is it too late to demand the land back? Suppose that two nations declared a treaty of alliance in 1900. In 2022, one of the nations is attacked. Can the other party to the treaty claim that they are not bound to any agreement made by their long-dead ancestors?

defrost 4y ago

Britain is A-OK with long term reparations. Mind you, that's for capitalist slave owners denied of "their chattels" .. not as compensation to those affected. > the British government spent £20 million, a staggering 40% of its budget in 1833, to buy freedom for slaves. > That’s equivalent to approximately £20bn today, making it one of the biggest ever government bailouts. > The cost was so high, the vast loans the government took out to fund it were only just paid off in 2015. [1] No slaves were apologied to, returned home, back paid, trained for future employment, etc. [1] https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200205-how-britain-is-facing-up-to-its-secret-slavery-history https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200205-how-britain-is-... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/12/treasury-tweet-slavery-compensate-slave-owners https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/12/treasu...

ashwagary 4y ago

Does the same state that legalized and profited from US slavery still exist? Yes. Since the damages can be quantified, the descendants are illegible to sue for them. Same goes for Indians and the Chinese where the UK and US is concerned. >How about domestic bloodbaths - English vs Scots, chattel slavery in middle ages Britain, ... Go ahead and pursue damages if you are affected and the liable state still exists. The Chinese, Indians, Africans Americans, and Native aren't going to do the work for you.

yummypaint 4y ago

There are many companies that have been in continuous operation and directly benefited from slavery. An example is Aetna in the US. These organizations are legally people, so they absolutely should be responsible for reparations based on their past activities.