Have you considered that other factors led to the countries being wealthy or impoverished, and this allowed the wealthy to take the impoverished as slaves?
Comment on How are slavery reparations fair?
charonn0@startrek.website 1 year ago
Nations that were the source of slaves remain on the whole impoverished and underdeveloped.
Nations that were slavers still remain on the whole wealthy and highly developed.
This is not a coincidence, and there is a reasonable case to be made for reparations on these grounds.
Dave@lemmy.nz 1 year ago
charonn0@startrek.website 1 year ago
For example?
Dave@lemmy.nz 1 year ago
I recommend the book “Guns, germs, and steel” if you’re interested. I’m not sure it covers this specifically, but it does cover in depth the reasons for different areas of the world being more of less wealthy (it has nothing to do with the people and everything to do with the area, natural resources inclusive flora and fauna, and proximity to other populations).
It’s an interesting read, even if a bit heavy.
charonn0@startrek.website 1 year ago
I read it 10+ years ago. As I recall, its main point had to do with differences between Old World and New World populations.
Since Africa falls into the Old World along with Europe, I don’t think the book actually supports any conclusions about this topic.
Apollo@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
The industrial revolution for one.
protist@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Yes, and even accounting for those, wealthy countries that took slaves still hold an enormous amount of responsibility for they did
Dave@lemmy.nz 1 year ago
The original OP argument is that those captors or slaves don’t exist anymore. Even the countries barely exist. Is this a matter of descendants being responsible for their ancestors crimes?
I think there’s a strong feedback loop argument here but I’m not sure that’s the point you’re making.
protist@mander.xyz 1 year ago
Do descendants have the same responsibility as their ancestors who actually owned slaves? No. But do they bear some ongoing responsibility as a benefactor of a system that was built around their ancestors owning slaves? Yeah they do.
All of this is incredibly messy, but approaching it at a governmental level is definitely something I support, because slavery was sanctioned and even encouraged by the government we’re talking about, which has existed continuously
Maturin@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Watch a video tour of the tourist sites if London. Or look what is in the imperial museum. Or the Victoria and Albert museum. The looted wealth of of their genocidal empire is still celebrated as a national treasure. India still has not recovered from British occupation, which only officially ended 75 years ago. And that’s like 20% of the entire current human population.
Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
Guns?
Dave@lemmy.nz 1 year ago
Yes, definitely. But why they had guns is also another question. I recommend the book “Gun, germs, and steel” as a great look into how and why different populations formed as they did.
lando55@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Germs.
KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Exactly. If anything, this amount of money is way too small.
Occasionally we read a news story about someone who escaped a maniac that kept them locked up for years, forcing them to work and do depraved things for little or no pay. We rightfully think this is terrible and the criminal is inhuman.
Slavery was millions of people in that situation for their entire lives. Whole economies were based on this genocide. We put Nazis to death for genocide. We put other leader on trial for similar crimes. Paying this tiny fine is the least the British (and other European governments) can do. The amount they really owe would bankrupt them.
What amount of money would you exchange for measurably worse lives (education, health, jobs) for you, your family, and everyone who looks like you for generations?
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
This is so false, slavery was wide practice in Africa already, the “slaving countrys” just bought them for the most part…
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah it existed as a practice. The big slave markets and infrastructure was not there until the North American slave trade opened up.
SexyTimeSasquatch@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Simply not correct at all. Look up the trans Saharan slave trade. It was absolutely enormous business before the Portuguese sailed down the West Coast of Africa.
JustZ@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Uhh okay. You’re talking about dozens or hundred people or so at a time, thousands of people per year, mostly prisoners of war, traded domestically, deported over a period of 1,700 years.
And it still not half as many slaves as were deported across the Atlantic in only 350 years. Millions of slaves died on the voyage. They built vast trading routes and employed slavers as a business model, building customized ships to transport 600 slaves at a time.
Apples and oranges.
ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Lol why is that comment you’re replying to so upvoted, people just like what they want to hear.
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
And? Thats not exactly question…
charonn0@startrek.website 1 year ago
Between 1500 and 1865, more than 80% of enslaved Africans were shipped to the Americas by European slave traders.
Neuromancer49@midwest.social 1 year ago
I’ve never seen an exact number ascribed to it, any chance you have a source?
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Uh… Yes Traders. They bought them in Africa and shipped them to America.
abies_exarchia@lemm.ee 1 year ago
What do you think an enormous demand for slaves, as the colonial nations building plantations and mines in the americas, does to a the supply of slaves? Supply and demand, friend. It’s not as if all the enslaved people exported to the Americas were already in circulation when the europeans came knocking
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
At that point the people there can’t put the blame on the buyer.
If Nescle kills children and steals water, but you buy it its not you doing the bad thing, you “just” support it.
roguetrick@kbin.social 1 year ago
I can't think of a single ethical framework that considers having someone else do your dirty work as permissible. If you have zero agency, sure. If you have nearly all the agency, like the colonial powers, no.
protist@mander.xyz 1 year ago
This argument is based on the idea that buying ill-gotten water is equivalent to buying people
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
What’s your point?
“I’m going to take these slaves and exploit them because if I don’t someone else will”
XiELEd@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Nope, they deliberately made it so that the populations of African countries can easily be enslaved.
Mojavee@lemmy.world 1 year ago
[deleted]charonn0@startrek.website 1 year ago
That the wealth they still enjoy was largely stolen. Especially when you add colonialism.
Gsus4@feddit.nl 1 year ago
The UKs position today is arguably due more to the Industrial Revolution and that was the main factor in the decay of slavery, so you need to balance historic grievances with development i.e. “what have the Romans ever done for us?”
Fades@lemmy.world 1 year ago