4 ms·

That is not a debt to slave owners, that is a debt taken on to pay for the costs of abolishing slavery. It's also talking about real agreements for an entity t

That is not a debt to slave owners, that is a debt taken on to pay for the costs of abolishing slavery. It's also talking about real agreements for an entity to exchange money in the future, for a bond tied to the value of the currency... Not some vibes based moral justification.

ZeroGravitas 1y ago
> That is not a debt to slave owners, that is a debt taken on to pay for the costs of abolishing slavery. The debt was taken on to pay reparations to slave owners. About £6 Billion in modern terms, 4.5 billion of which was borrowed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
- philipallstar 1y ago
  No, it wasn't "reparations". It was a commercial transaction to legally buy slaves and set them free.
Defletter 1y ago
Correct, the slave owners were already "compensated" for their crimes against humanity 200 years ago, so the debt being completed was the loan the UK took out to do so. But you are missing the point: the argument being made here (and in other comments) is that slavery was soooo loooonng aggoooo that considering reparations is at best virtue signalling, and at worst moronic. And yet you and others do not bat an eye at debt lasting that long. And let's be clear, I am fully supportive of OP's advocacy for funding black neighbourhoods and other such programmes. I am specifically aiming at this whining sophistry (which I'm not claiming OP made, but just in general) about slavery being ancient history so reparations are ridiculous, but debt lasting that long is totally fine and normal.
- typewithrhythm 1y ago
  Because a debt like that is essentially a chunk of currency, that is passed between entitys; it doesn't matter when a debt a government was issued, the current holder is another contemporary entity or person. Why a debt was created is irrelevant to the current holder, can't you understand why a government default is bad?
  - Defletter 1y ago
    Can't you understand why attempting to resolve past wrongs is good? Why are finance obligations so important that they MUST persist throughout the centuries, but attempting to fix the legacies of human suffering is just "vibes based moral justification"? Why are numbers more important than people?
    - typewithrhythm 1y ago
      You dont seem to understand; the debt is owned and exchanged by contemporary people, why or when that debt was created is irrelevant, because the body (government) that owes it has many other debts created over time. You can not pick and choose which ones to repay without causing everyone who you currently owe money to be alarmed. Deciding to default on an old debt like that would be the equivalent of deciding any coin minted in 1993 is no longer valid, suck it up whoever currently has one in their pocket. To be clear, you are the one trying to draw this parallel without any solid foundation to make it. When you look the moral problem, there is a discontinuity that doesn't exist for abstract financial instruments. People make moral choices; you are trying to saddle people who didn't make those choices with some sort of culpability. This is a different case and needs to be made without trying to use financial instruments as a starting point.
      - Defletter 1y ago
        And the institution of slavery and its legacies were and are experienced by contemporary people. In fact, penal chattel slavery was an ongoing thing well into the 20th century in the US. And I honestly fail to see the distinction you're making: you insist that financial obligations are different because, to paraphrase: "there's a paper trail and defaulting is bad". But slavery and its legacies also has a paper trail, likewise with human life and misery, and not resolving this is also bad. You have yet to provide an argument that fundamentally CANNOT also be applied to reparations: you've only given arguments over how we merely don't apply them to reparations. This kind of definition game, that 'reparations aren't considered that way because we don't consider them that way', reminds me of when there's outrage over police murdering someone and people insisting it's not murder because murder is an unlawful killing. So, I ask you, without resorting to mere definition, what is the difference between "People make moral choices; you are trying to saddle people who didn't make those choices with some sort of culpability" (reparations) and "People make financial choices; you are trying to saddle people who didn't make those choices with some sort of culpability" (debt)?
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > And yet you and others do not bat an eye at debt lasting that long People don't have debts or credits they didn't sign up for. You're failing to tell the difference between something the British government hundreds of years ago signed the British Empire up in perpetuity to pay to enforce on the world a totally new value system, and someone born today suddenly being assigned a credit or debit based on things from hundreds of years ago.
  - Defletter 1y ago
    That is a distinction without a difference: my tax money went to paying off that loan. Whether it was a debt established 200 years ago that we we're still paying off, or assigned a new debt based on something that happened 200 years ago makes no difference: I still had to pay for it. It's a legal fiction, all of it. Quibbling over whether it's this category or that makes no difference to me having to pay for it.
    - philipallstar 1y ago
      From that perspective (thing be paid off), yes, they're the same. But that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying debts signed up to voluntarily, even 200 years ago, are not the same as debts created involuntarily today, retroactive 200 years. A noble act (helping to end slavery) freely given and in normal debt-creation circumstances doesn't justify totally different circumstances.
      - Defletter 1y ago
        Correct, the difference is that one gave money to slave owners, and the other is compensating the descendants of slavery (and its ongoing legacies) for the crimes against humanity committed against them.
Teever 1y ago
> That is not a debt to slave owners, that is a debt taken on to pay for the costs of abolishing slavery. This seems like a distinction without a difference. Can you elaborate?
- suzakus 1y ago
  The slave owners were paid lifetimes ago. The repayments are to the inheritors of the debt that was taken on to pay said slave owners.
- typewithrhythm 1y ago
  If you say we are not paying a debt to slave owners, then slave owners do not receive money. If you say we are not paying the current holder of a bond we created to pay slave owners in the past, then you damage your current credit rating. (In the worst case, potentially hurting organisations that let you have good terms for socially beneficial causes, refusing to pay back a charity that helps end slavery for example).

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

> That is not a debt to slave owners, that is a debt taken on to pay for the costs of abolishing slavery. The debt was taken on to pay reparations to slave owners. About £6 Billion in modern terms, 4.5 billion of which was borrowed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

philipallstar 1y ago
No, it wasn't "reparations". It was a commercial transaction to legally buy slaves and set them free.

Defletter 1y ago

Correct, the slave owners were already "compensated" for their crimes against humanity 200 years ago, so the debt being completed was the loan the UK took out to do so. But you are missing the point: the argument being made here (and in other comments) is that slavery was soooo loooonng aggoooo that considering reparations is at best virtue signalling, and at worst moronic. And yet you and others do not bat an eye at debt lasting that long. And let's be clear, I am fully supportive of OP's advocacy for funding black neighbourhoods and other such programmes. I am specifically aiming at this whining sophistry (which I'm not claiming OP made, but just in general) about slavery being ancient history so reparations are ridiculous, but debt lasting that long is totally fine and normal.

typewithrhythm 1y ago
Because a debt like that is essentially a chunk of currency, that is passed between entitys; it doesn't matter when a debt a government was issued, the current holder is another contemporary entity or person. Why a debt was created is irrelevant to the current holder, can't you understand why a government default is bad?
- Defletter 1y ago
  Can't you understand why attempting to resolve past wrongs is good? Why are finance obligations so important that they MUST persist throughout the centuries, but attempting to fix the legacies of human suffering is just "vibes based moral justification"? Why are numbers more important than people?
  - typewithrhythm 1y ago
    You dont seem to understand; the debt is owned and exchanged by contemporary people, why or when that debt was created is irrelevant, because the body (government) that owes it has many other debts created over time. You can not pick and choose which ones to repay without causing everyone who you currently owe money to be alarmed. Deciding to default on an old debt like that would be the equivalent of deciding any coin minted in 1993 is no longer valid, suck it up whoever currently has one in their pocket. To be clear, you are the one trying to draw this parallel without any solid foundation to make it. When you look the moral problem, there is a discontinuity that doesn't exist for abstract financial instruments. People make moral choices; you are trying to saddle people who didn't make those choices with some sort of culpability. This is a different case and needs to be made without trying to use financial instruments as a starting point.
    - Defletter 1y ago
      And the institution of slavery and its legacies were and are experienced by contemporary people. In fact, penal chattel slavery was an ongoing thing well into the 20th century in the US. And I honestly fail to see the distinction you're making: you insist that financial obligations are different because, to paraphrase: "there's a paper trail and defaulting is bad". But slavery and its legacies also has a paper trail, likewise with human life and misery, and not resolving this is also bad. You have yet to provide an argument that fundamentally CANNOT also be applied to reparations: you've only given arguments over how we merely don't apply them to reparations. This kind of definition game, that 'reparations aren't considered that way because we don't consider them that way', reminds me of when there's outrage over police murdering someone and people insisting it's not murder because murder is an unlawful killing. So, I ask you, without resorting to mere definition, what is the difference between "People make moral choices; you are trying to saddle people who didn't make those choices with some sort of culpability" (reparations) and "People make financial choices; you are trying to saddle people who didn't make those choices with some sort of culpability" (debt)?
philipallstar 1y ago
> And yet you and others do not bat an eye at debt lasting that long People don't have debts or credits they didn't sign up for. You're failing to tell the difference between something the British government hundreds of years ago signed the British Empire up in perpetuity to pay to enforce on the world a totally new value system, and someone born today suddenly being assigned a credit or debit based on things from hundreds of years ago.
- Defletter 1y ago
  That is a distinction without a difference: my tax money went to paying off that loan. Whether it was a debt established 200 years ago that we we're still paying off, or assigned a new debt based on something that happened 200 years ago makes no difference: I still had to pay for it. It's a legal fiction, all of it. Quibbling over whether it's this category or that makes no difference to me having to pay for it.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    From that perspective (thing be paid off), yes, they're the same. But that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying debts signed up to voluntarily, even 200 years ago, are not the same as debts created involuntarily today, retroactive 200 years. A noble act (helping to end slavery) freely given and in normal debt-creation circumstances doesn't justify totally different circumstances.
    - Defletter 1y ago
      Correct, the difference is that one gave money to slave owners, and the other is compensating the descendants of slavery (and its ongoing legacies) for the crimes against humanity committed against them.

Teever 1y ago

> That is not a debt to slave owners, that is a debt taken on to pay for the costs of abolishing slavery. This seems like a distinction without a difference. Can you elaborate?

suzakus 1y ago
The slave owners were paid lifetimes ago. The repayments are to the inheritors of the debt that was taken on to pay said slave owners.
typewithrhythm 1y ago
If you say we are not paying a debt to slave owners, then slave owners do not receive money. If you say we are not paying the current holder of a bond we created to pay slave owners in the past, then you damage your current credit rating. (In the worst case, potentially hurting organisations that let you have good terms for socially beneficial causes, refusing to pay back a charity that helps end slavery for example).