Should the UK say 'sorry' for slavery and pay reparations?

DadaKopf

as for third world debt, I thought the G8 summit in St Andrews agreed to take positive steps in removing it, they seem to be moving very slowly.

This should answer your question.

Killaqueen!!!

SuperSean11 wrote:

I dont no the holocaust Heroshima Pearl Harbour (Unprovoced Attack) twin towers (still no apology from bin laden)

My God, how ignorant are you?

Yes the Holocaust during WW2 was terrible (as was all the other events you listed) - but that is remembered. That is remembered greatly. The slavery trade is just sort of sweeped under the carpet and forgotton about. I don't think an apology is in order - what will that do? But certainly it needs to be taught to people (perhaps in History class in school), and maybe a memorial day so that people remember that horrible period in history.

You speak about the holocaust (presumably talking about WW2) yet the slavery trade in Africa alone was a holocaust in itself. Millions and millions of Africans alone (more than the Holocaust in WW2) died during that time as a result of slavery. Why do you class the Holocaust in WW2 worse than the slave trade?

FTA69

SuperSean11 wrote:

I dont no the holocaust Heroshima Pearl Harbour (Unprovoced Attack) twin towers (still no apology from bin laden)

Slavery killed more than all those incidents put together and multiplied. Pearl Harbour? A few hundred soldiers killed in an incident is comparable to exporting millions in brutal conditions which killed half of the slaves, only to arrive to be worked to death? I'd say you'd want to rethink your post, unless the lives of blacks are worth less in your opinion?

SuperSean11

I apologise for saying worse things have happened but the slave trade is still going on all over the world so why should countries apologise at list some have stopped mass slave trading

Whim

This is a fairly typical attitude it seems to me. Fair enough people might not be denying the happenings of the past as such, but people don't really want to acknowledge it. The premise of the whole article is that, fair enough current Britons weren't involved in slavery, but Britain benefitted from and still benefits from the fruits of slavery and colonisation. As such, I believe the UK government has a duty to say sorry for slavery. Reparations should also be forthcoming, although the form they would take, and how it would be dispensed would be tricky.

The modern countries shouldn't apologise for benefiting of what was already put in place by past governments. It's not their fault. The only thing they should apologise for is not doing enough to imrpove the sitation.

Real acknowledgement, IMHO, would come in the form of global economic, political and social reform that truly pave the way for developing countries, exploited for centuries, to genuinely exist as equals in the world.

Yes, this is what I meant earlier by people should do something that actually matters. And apologise for not doing anything, if they're apologising for anything.

Am I the only one who thinks reparations seems a bit arrogant? Who excactly is demanding them? Fair enough if it's the people who are geniunely in a worse off position than they would've been without slavery bestowed on their ancestors (don't even ask me how you're going to determine that) but there's a lot of quite well off people descended from slaves. Do they get money?

DadaKopf

Who excactly is demanding them?

Very important question. I'm not sure, either.

Victor

Whim wrote:

The modern countries shouldn't apologise for benefiting of what was already put in place by past governments. It's not their fault. The only thing they should apologise for is not doing enough to imrpove the sitation.

You point is ambiguous, but I'll make mine anyway. If the lovely buildings of London, Paris and Brussels were put in place out of the profits of slavery and empire, then those governments are benefitting still.

Am I the only one who thinks reparations seems a bit arrogant? Who excactly is demanding them? Fair enough if it's the people who are geniunely in a worse off position than they would've been without slavery bestowed on their ancestors (don't even ask me how you're going to determine that) but there's a lot of quite well off people descended from slaves. Do they get money?

Reparations need to come from one society and be given to another society. I would point to the north-south analagy, but that shouldn't be exclusive.

Africa is the basket case it is today, because of the basket case leaders that rose by default after being de-imperialised. Those basket case leaders had the imperials as role models.

Erin Go Brath

Whim wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks reparations seems a bit arrogant? Who excactly is demanding them? Fair enough if it's the people who are geniunely in a worse off position than they would've been without slavery bestowed on their ancestors (don't even ask me how you're going to determine that) but there's a lot of quite well off people descended from slaves. Do they get money?

A country invading another country with the purpose of plundering their resources, and telling the rest of the world that their purpose was to bring improvement, and advancements; all the while killing their people while telling the rest of the world that they are a benign/benevolent force. Thats arrogant!

Every country, and peoples should have the right to decide their own fate, and formulate their own way forward. Whether enslaved people have become better off financially now, because of the effects of slavery on their ancestors is not really important. It's still wrong, and their people have still been wronged.

As discussed earlier the whole repartion dispensing issue is nigh on impossible to deliver. If the coloniser countries had to fork out repartions in retrospect to countries they invaded illegally, taking into account inflation, loss of life, etc etc etc. Then the former invaded countries may become wealthier than their previous colonial masters. Now that would be justice

Zambia

Listen there is not one person alive today that was involved in the context of Slavery as you are describing.

The Public at the time demanded an end to the trade and it ended. Some places it took longer than others. The people of that time handled the issue of that time to make life better for everyone in todays world.

I think people should just move on there are loads of issues today that need handling for the reasons they are wrong today.
They have been discussed here already by DadaKopf and Arkasia who are a lot more tuned in to these global issues than most.

We should turn our attention to making life better for those who will write about todays era, and not try an add a to an achievement already won in the past.

P.S Slavery was a part of life for years. Just as women where considered second class citizens for years. Should there be a mass legal case to settle that injustice Man V Women.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

A country invading another country with the purpose of plundering their resources, and telling the rest of the world that their purpose was to bring improvement, and advancements; all the while killing their people while telling the rest of the world that they are a benign/benevolent force. Thats arrogant!

Every country, and peoples should have the right to decide their own fate, and formulate their own way forward. Whether enslaved people have become better off financially now, because of the effects of slavery on their ancestors is not really important. It's still wrong, and their people have still been wronged.

As discussed earlier the whole repartion dispensing issue is nigh on impossible to deliver. If the coloniser countries had to fork out repartions in retrospect to countries they invaded illegally, taking into account inflation, loss of life, etc etc etc. Then the former invaded countries may become wealthier than their previous colonial masters. Now that would be justice

Tell me, what's the weather like up on your moral high ground?:D

ideally yes, but the history of the human race doesn't work like that. Every country has some record of plundering others, it is/was human nature.

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Then the former invaded countries may become wealthier than their previous colonial masters. Now that would be justice

Then Ireland should get out the global check book as well cause when all this was going on it was part of the UK.

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

Then Ireland should get out the global check book as well cause when all this was going on it was part of the UK.

Eh actually we were an unwilling part of that union. Several hundred years of fighting for our independence and all that!

Victor

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Eh actually we were an unwilling part of that union. Several hundred years of fighting for our independence and all that!

How do you think mahogany is a popular timber in old Dublin buildings?

LeftVentricle

Zambia232 wrote:

Then Ireland should get out the global check book as well cause when all this was going on it was part of the UK.

Just like the Austrians, Czechs and Poles should feel guilty for what their country (Germany) was doing back between 1939-1945, because they werent imperial terroritories like Denmark, Belgium, Norway, etc. were; they were integral parts of the German state.

Zambia

Folks I understand the whole aspect of "we never wanted to be in the UK an all that" but similarly not everyone in the UK, Holland etc wanted or needed slaves.

However those are the same people who you now advocate the taxing of to pay reparations.

Plus it was allready mentioned that , if you benefited from fruit of the poisoned tree then you are liable.

On a side note, does anyone know a current Dublin/Irish building built by slaves.

Fratton Fred

I doubt very much if there is any country in Europe that has not prospered from the slave trade, willingly or not.

This issue is as much about the way the developed world made money on the back of the under developed world as it is colonialism.

which is why reparations will not work, the only fair and reasonable thing is ending poverty.

oscarBravo

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Eh actually we were an unwilling part of that union. Several hundred years of fighting for our independence and all that!

That's a very, very debatable historical stance. That said, back on topic, please.

Kevster

NO, of course they shouldn't apologise and the whole debate is pathetic. In fact, it [this debate] is symptomatic of a mature democracy - i.e. it's riddled with crap that wastes time and money.

johnnyskeleton

1) I believe that apologies for some things that happened 200+ years ago don't cost the exchequer anything, and are politically beneficial. If Tony apologised for invading Iraq on false information and then trying to cover it up, it could cost them billions in very real reparations and it would also guarantee that Labour won't be re-elected. So however bad things were in the past, they should not distract us from what is going on now. In this regard I would echo the comments of an earlier poster that sex slaves/migrant workers are problems that receive much less attention than this big ceremonious remembrance of 200 years ago. It seems we find it more palatable to talk about something that is distanced from us.

2) Many slaves were European, not just the Irish ones/St. Patrick mentioned above, but in many German states and Russia (I'm sure there are other countries as well), slavery (serfdom) existed until the end of the 19th century. You could also argue that the people who lived under Eastern European communist regimes were also "slaves". They should not be overlooked, because to confine it to slaves taken from Africa (although the trade from Africa was horrific) is, IMO, a reflection of the way Europeans patronise Africans in the modern world, and also a reflection of the way African-Americans are sometimes still considered second class citizens in the US. So I think the focus on Africa has other reasons behind it.

3) Where did slavery start? I would imagine it started somewhere around Mesopotamia or in indo-china (where the first civilizations started). It was probably first used on an industrial scale in Ancient Egypt. So suggesting that Europe is the source of slavery is not strictly true.

4) The Incas, who had no contact with Europeans until the 15th century, ran a thriving slave trade across a continent. The Tiahuanaco civilization before them were probably also involved. Should Peru and Bolivia, two very poor countries, pay reparations to Brazil, Argentina and Chile? In my opinion, the debate is not about slavery but about modern day inequalities.

5) The destruction of the native Americans could be considered a parallel to the slave trade. Millions of them were killed in the most horrific manner possible. But if you were to suggest giving them back all of the USA and destroying all the major cities doesn't really make sense. So there must be a realistic approach taken to any proposed action.

6) What about people who moved to the UK from another country, or their parents did, and they now consider themselves British. Do they have to feel guilty, even if they/their parents are from Thailand or Papua New Guinea? In my view, the only appropriate reparations would be of specific national treasures, e.g. the Greek marble statutes that the British took for safe keeping during WWII, or indigenous art such as in the Chester Beaty Library. However, again we must remember that some of these possessions belong to private citizens who paid full value for them.

SuperSean11

oscarBravo wrote:

That's a very, very debatable historical stance. That said, back on topic, please.

Dont see how thats a debatable stance Very few Irish people welcomed england (Sorry to take it off topic again:rolleyes: )

oscarBravo

Don't apologise, just don't do it. If you really want to discuss it, start a thread - preferably on the History board - but be prepared to back up your assertions.

karen3212

I personally would find an apology insulting, and they people giving it arrogant. I also think that it would be extremely difficult to make reparations.