If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Reperations for slave descendants?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Read this article today and found it very interesting. What is your take on reperations being paid to the blacks of today.
The Spectator.co.uk
25 August 2001
White is right
As the UN prepares to debate race and slavery, Andrew Kenny reflects on
African obscurantism and European enlightenment Cape Town
The highest concerns of the South African government are the Three Rs:
race, race, race. Our appalling levels of violent crime, our calamitous
unemployment, the Aids epidemic decimating our population — all of these
are very low on the African National Congress’s priorities. Indeed, on the
rare occasions when a local journalist dares to ask President Mbeki about
them, he brushes them aside with a look of irritation. His highest priority
is always the question of skin colour. Like the apartheid regime before it,
the ANC government is completely obsessed with race.
The UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Related Intolerance, in Durban next week therefore takes precedence
over everything else for the South African government. For months our
newspapers have been promoting it with solemn excitement. We shall see
whether it achieves anything. Meanwhile, a problem has arisen about whether
or not the conference should discuss reparations for slavery. This is a
fascinating moral question. Europe has indeed played a unique role in the
history of slavery. Slavery has been a universal feature of all societies
throughout most of history. Blacks and whites; Africans, Asians and
Europeans; Christians, Muslims and pagans — all of them kept slaves. Every
person alive today has ancestors who were slaves or slave owners. What
makes Europe unique is that it ended slavery. Western civilisation alone —
the white man alone — decided that slavery was wrong.
For thousands of years black Africans had been enslaving other black
Africans. Then black Africans began selling black Africans to Arab slave
dealers. The black slaves were force-marched across the Sahara Desert to
North Africa and the Middle East. Black male slaves were castrated to work
in Arab harems. Much later the white man arrived, wanting slaves for the
American colonies. The black slave traders in West Africa were delighted to
oblige. It meant a lucrative expansion of their traditional business. An
African chief explained the deal as follows: ‘We want three things: powder,
ball and brandy; and we have three things to sell: men, women and
children.’ West African nations prospered mightily under the slave trade.
Then something most strange happened. Prompted by Christian conscience,
beginning towards the end of the 17th century, white men in Europe began to
campaign against the notion of slavery. Nothing like this had ever happened
before. In Africa blacks who were enslaved did not like it, but blacks who
were not enslaved had no objection to it. Both accepted it as part of
African culture. In the United States many of the blacks were free men and
some of them owned black slaves; they, too, had no objection to the concept
of slavery. Asians and Africans alike continued to think that slavery was
perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable. It was only among white
Europeans that opposition to slavery grew.
In 1772 slavery was abolished on English soil, and in 1833 it was outlawed
throughout the British empire. France followed suit. The West Africans were
horrified. Their centuries-old enterprise was threatened. Countries such as
the Gambia, the Congo and Dahomey sent delegations to London and Paris to
protest strongly against the abolition of slavery.
Now here is a moral dilemma. If you believe in the new ethics of
‘multiculturalism’ or ‘moral relativism’, you will say that all morality is
relative to culture. People of one culture should not criticise people of
another. Therefore, if slave dealing was part of West African culture, the
white man had no right to oppose it. In doing so he was guilty of cultural
imperialism. Indeed the use of main force by the Royal Navy to stop
Africans exporting other Africans to America might well be considered the
most arrogant act of cultural imperialism ever performed.
On the other hand, if you believe in absolute morality, you will believe
that slavery is simply wrong and must never be allowed regardless of
culture. Then you will congratulate the Royal Navy.
I am of the latter persuasion. I believe there is an absolute morality on
all important matters. I believe the white imperialists were sometimes
absolutely right in their moral prescriptions to black Africa (such as the
ending of slavery and the censure of female circumcision) and sometimes
absolutely wrong (such as in promoting legal abortion over a wide range of
circumstances).
Among the descendants of the parties concerned, the big winners are the
descendants of the slaves in the United States. They are far better off
than black Africans, which is why black Americans do not want to live in
Africa but black Africans would love to live in America. The losers are
more difficult to identify, but it is to them we must look for answers to
the question of reparation for slavery.
If you believe in moral relativism, you will hold that the great damage
done was to the West African slave owners, whose business was ruined by the
white imperialists. In this case, you should urge the Durban Conference to
pay compensation to the descendants of the slave owners.
If you believe in moral absolutism, you will say that the great damage done
was to the African villages from whom the slaves were drawn. In this case,
you should want the Durban Conference to demand compensation to the
descendants of these villagers from the descendants of the two parties
responsible for the Atlantic slave trade: the white men from Europe and the
black men from West Africa. In other words, moral relativism says that the
descendants of West African slave dealers should receive compensation;
moral absolutism says that they should pay it.
The Spectator.co.uk
25 August 2001
White is right
As the UN prepares to debate race and slavery, Andrew Kenny reflects on
African obscurantism and European enlightenment Cape Town
The highest concerns of the South African government are the Three Rs:
race, race, race. Our appalling levels of violent crime, our calamitous
unemployment, the Aids epidemic decimating our population — all of these
are very low on the African National Congress’s priorities. Indeed, on the
rare occasions when a local journalist dares to ask President Mbeki about
them, he brushes them aside with a look of irritation. His highest priority
is always the question of skin colour. Like the apartheid regime before it,
the ANC government is completely obsessed with race.
The UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia
and Related Intolerance, in Durban next week therefore takes precedence
over everything else for the South African government. For months our
newspapers have been promoting it with solemn excitement. We shall see
whether it achieves anything. Meanwhile, a problem has arisen about whether
or not the conference should discuss reparations for slavery. This is a
fascinating moral question. Europe has indeed played a unique role in the
history of slavery. Slavery has been a universal feature of all societies
throughout most of history. Blacks and whites; Africans, Asians and
Europeans; Christians, Muslims and pagans — all of them kept slaves. Every
person alive today has ancestors who were slaves or slave owners. What
makes Europe unique is that it ended slavery. Western civilisation alone —
the white man alone — decided that slavery was wrong.
For thousands of years black Africans had been enslaving other black
Africans. Then black Africans began selling black Africans to Arab slave
dealers. The black slaves were force-marched across the Sahara Desert to
North Africa and the Middle East. Black male slaves were castrated to work
in Arab harems. Much later the white man arrived, wanting slaves for the
American colonies. The black slave traders in West Africa were delighted to
oblige. It meant a lucrative expansion of their traditional business. An
African chief explained the deal as follows: ‘We want three things: powder,
ball and brandy; and we have three things to sell: men, women and
children.’ West African nations prospered mightily under the slave trade.
Then something most strange happened. Prompted by Christian conscience,
beginning towards the end of the 17th century, white men in Europe began to
campaign against the notion of slavery. Nothing like this had ever happened
before. In Africa blacks who were enslaved did not like it, but blacks who
were not enslaved had no objection to it. Both accepted it as part of
African culture. In the United States many of the blacks were free men and
some of them owned black slaves; they, too, had no objection to the concept
of slavery. Asians and Africans alike continued to think that slavery was
perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable. It was only among white
Europeans that opposition to slavery grew.
In 1772 slavery was abolished on English soil, and in 1833 it was outlawed
throughout the British empire. France followed suit. The West Africans were
horrified. Their centuries-old enterprise was threatened. Countries such as
the Gambia, the Congo and Dahomey sent delegations to London and Paris to
protest strongly against the abolition of slavery.
Now here is a moral dilemma. If you believe in the new ethics of
‘multiculturalism’ or ‘moral relativism’, you will say that all morality is
relative to culture. People of one culture should not criticise people of
another. Therefore, if slave dealing was part of West African culture, the
white man had no right to oppose it. In doing so he was guilty of cultural
imperialism. Indeed the use of main force by the Royal Navy to stop
Africans exporting other Africans to America might well be considered the
most arrogant act of cultural imperialism ever performed.
On the other hand, if you believe in absolute morality, you will believe
that slavery is simply wrong and must never be allowed regardless of
culture. Then you will congratulate the Royal Navy.
I am of the latter persuasion. I believe there is an absolute morality on
all important matters. I believe the white imperialists were sometimes
absolutely right in their moral prescriptions to black Africa (such as the
ending of slavery and the censure of female circumcision) and sometimes
absolutely wrong (such as in promoting legal abortion over a wide range of
circumstances).
Among the descendants of the parties concerned, the big winners are the
descendants of the slaves in the United States. They are far better off
than black Africans, which is why black Americans do not want to live in
Africa but black Africans would love to live in America. The losers are
more difficult to identify, but it is to them we must look for answers to
the question of reparation for slavery.
If you believe in moral relativism, you will hold that the great damage
done was to the West African slave owners, whose business was ruined by the
white imperialists. In this case, you should urge the Durban Conference to
pay compensation to the descendants of the slave owners.
If you believe in moral absolutism, you will say that the great damage done
was to the African villages from whom the slaves were drawn. In this case,
you should want the Durban Conference to demand compensation to the
descendants of these villagers from the descendants of the two parties
responsible for the Atlantic slave trade: the white men from Europe and the
black men from West Africa. In other words, moral relativism says that the
descendants of West African slave dealers should receive compensation;
moral absolutism says that they should pay it.
0
Comments
HOWEVER, if raparations are in order then I wants dem fo mi Cajun people...from the 'hated' english invaders!
Such social foolishness to keep up distracted...AIDS is solving the African problem, in a few years it can be recolonized perhaps by using the 'dark' continent as a dumping ground for our 'criminal' element.
It appears that South Africa would have been much better off under the Boors(sp).
Gotta go, geting too much help on the keyboard from my toddler grandson!
Diesel
88888888
Its like they say, you can't please some people.
I say this in part because such an idea serves only to punish me for something my family couldnt have had anything to do with - the money would invariably be coming from my pocket and because of this - punishes ME.
To hell with reparations, to hell with all those who demand reparations. It is a high dishonor for the so called 'descendants' to even make such a demand - not only to themselves but to their 'ancestors' who indeed suffered the pains of slavery. Indulge my nationalist side in saying if you don't like it here - leave, leave immediately - I'll gladly fund THAT. But reparations, (demands Ive heard of up to 1 mill for each 'descendant' family) NEVER.
peacechild
[This message has been edited by peacechild (edited 04-09-2001).]
Outrage as Black Reporter says 'Thank God for Slavery'
A black American author has sparked anger and controversy among black nationalists "by repudiating his African roots and
thanking God his ancestor was enslaved."
"Keith Richburg has been shunned and insulted for daring to reject the Afro-centric idealism which is an article of faith in black
America. In Out Of America, published in February,1997, (hardcover, 288 pages; 'Basic Books,' ISBN: 0465001874),
after he spent three years reporting from Africa for the Washington Post, Mr Richburg hurls down a challenge to black
American leaders to stop deceiving themselves and the 35 million (black) descendants of slaves, that Africa is Eden on earth.
"I'm tired of lying,' he writes. 'And I'm tired of all the ignorance and hypocrisy and the double standards I hear and read about
Africa, much of it from people who've never been there, let alone spent three years walking around amid the corpses.
"Talk to me about Africa and my black roots and my kinship with my African brothers and I'll throw it back in your face, and
then I'll rub your nose in the images of the rotting flesh.'
"Richburg spent three years covering the continent's senseless violence, corruption, bloody and incessant
cruelties--machete-wielding Hutu militiamen, a cholera epidemic in Zaire, famine in Somalia, civil war in Liberia, disease, dirt,
dictatorships, killer children, AIDS, terror.
"Had my ancestor not made it out of here,' Richburg muses, 'I might have ended up in that crowd...maybe I would have been
one of those bodies, washing over the waterfall in Tanzania or maybe my son would have been set ablaze by soldiers. Or I
would be limping now from the torture I received in some rancid police cell...'
Afrocentrism 'has become fashionable for many blacks, Richburg notes. 'It cannot work for me. I have been here, I have lived
here and seen Africa in all its horror.'
"Mr Richburg's every word is an assault on the group identity politics which have taken hold among black intellectuals and
leads, critics say, to a Balkanisation of American society. Thinking about his slave forebear, transported in chains to the
Caribbean and thence to South Carolina, Mr Richburg writes: "Thank God my ancestor got out, because, now, I am not one
of them [Africans]. In short, thank God I am an American."
"Borders, a Washington D.C. book shop, was packed this month for a lecture by Mr Richburg at which hecklers accused him
of racial betrayal. 'One man demanded to know if the author had a white girlfriend,' said Mary Ann Brownlow, who organised
the lecture.
"When Mr Richburg appeared on a talk show on Black Entertainment Television, Randall Robinson, leader of the TransAfrica
lobby group and one of America's most prominent blacks, refused to join the discussion.
"Jackie Clark, producer of the show, said: 'We African-Americans have this vision of Africa as the motherland which we see
in this wonderful light, but people who have lived there can burst this bubble. It takes courage to say things you know are
going to outrage people, but I think Richburg wishes he were white.'
"Out Of America is a gruesomely detailed account of barbarism and corruption across the continent, particularly in Somalia
and Rwanda. The author pulls no punches in condemning it, and no...myth is spared. When sketching how his ancestor was
enslaved, he says it was first 'probably by a local chieftain.' The suggestion that African blacks were slave owners is anathema
in America...
"Mr Richburg, who is now working for the Washington Post in Hong Kong, says he is not condoning the evil of slavery, but
insists that condemning it should not blind blacks to the fact that good has emerged from it..."
Reviews of Richburg's Out of America:
E.G. Long: "Africa is a painful reality. Over the past 21 years, I have lived and worked in five African countries: Kenya,
Tanzania, Zambia, Zaire and Nigeria. ..There is nothing in Richburg's book that I could contradict. I too, experienced the
horror, and hopelessnesss of that continent. I read 'Out of America' in one sitting... "
Steve Wishnevsky: "This is the voice missing from the current race 'dialogue.' Mr. Richburg is a courageous writer and clear
observer...His is an authentic voice and should be listened to closely. America is the only land where the descendants of
Africans have anything approaching freedom and economic opportunity."
H. Luther: "So much of what you hear about Africa lately is from people who have never been there. People who want to
romanticize what is in fact chaos and disaster...Richburg has written what he has seen, he has presented reality with great
integrity. It is a must read. "
I almost choked on my soup laughing at the thoughts of african nations demanding cash reparations for slavery. I guess we will never put the past behind us as long as idiots keep bringing it up. Yeah right, who's going to pay it? the US? Britain? Spain? yeah the US will pay it oh yeah we already do with all the foreign aid we send them. Blacks in america have opportunities their ancestors in africa never had and most never will have. granted it sucks that these opportunities arose from slavery. But if things were different, the cultural diversity of america would be seriously defficient of blacks. Africa itself would still be in the stoneage if not for westeren intervention.
Maybe individual reparations are a logistical impossibility but perhaps at least an apology!
The West continues to back up well dodgy dictatorhips in Africa with loans tied to arms sales and Western comapanies exploit its rich mineral wealth with little benefit to the local population.
What about a Marshall Aid type scheme like the one that put Europe back on its feet after ww2?
surely all the dodgier elements on the boards would be fully in favour of this one.Stable countries=fewer economic migrants.
Tens of millions??? Are you sure about that? There were about 2 million slaves in the US when they abolished slavery. Where do you get your numbers?
Why is the enslavement of the blacks different to the enslavement of any other race of people?
Youre saying over 5 million people died on the slave ships? I ask again, where do you get your numbers?
Ok slavery has been a part of every single culture on earth. It was a part of african culture LONG before any white man got there. They were selling each other into slavery then and they are still doing it today.
The ONLY culture in the history of the world that said slavery was unacceptable and put a stop to it was us, the British. It was Royal Navy ships they blockaded the slave ships and ports. We fought to bring an end to slavery. Hundreds of thousands of white men in America died in the name of emancipation.
Why cant you understand that getting the US and Brits to apologise for slavery is stupid, pointless and just an easy way for black americans to make money. If not for the British deciding slavery was bad then millions would still be in bondage.
Another aspect is this....I have never owned a slave. In fact I do not know a single person who does. Ill bet that no American has owned a slave. Their ancesters did.
Since when does the son have to pay for the crimes of his father? If the Brits and US have to pay reperations then the descendants of the african tribes who sold slaves should also have to pay..along with the arabs.
Say we do give them an apology..where does it stop? We apologise for something that happened 300 years ago, why not for something 500, 1000, 10,000 years ago? Why not work out exactly how much money is owed to each nation by every other nation by working out the wars and invasions its put up with.
(a) Be visiting the sins of the father upon the son... and great-great-great-...-grandson.
(b) Set a dangerous precendent for future compensation claims stretching back into antiquity. To thoroughly investigate such claims, and then extract payment and distribute it accordingly, would be a mammoth task that would waste far more time than the human race's judiciary probably will EVER have. Just think of the tangled blood-lines of humanity over the past 1000 years. And then there are appeals!
(c) It would be reverse-racism.
(d) The only people to profit from the whole mess would be the lawyers. Any plan that frustrates their self-serving divide-and-conquer tactics immediately scores points with me.
Someone's already pointed out that the British Empire not only banned the institution of slavery, but also the trade itself - and then enforced its decision. If you were a slaver skipper and saw a British frigate coming at you, you were out of business and looking at a nice long prison term. I don't know about other coutries, but I think the UK certainly showed its remorse and did its bit reparation-wise simply by its actions against the trade.
As for a formal apology, doesn't a nation's having ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( :: coughs :: ) mean it has already recognised slavery as being wrong?
Let us see, now... Hmm...
By THAT logic (or the LACK thereof), any time you walk into the store and purchase something, as in, HAND OVER CASH FOR GOODS, you have committed an act of theft. Does it COMPLETELY escape you that the slaves PURCHASED out of Africa were sold by their cultural brothers? Oh, I forgot, this is an emotional subject, rather than examining with fact and logic.
Sorry....
Carry on, little bleating sheep. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif">
p.s. > before someone accuses me (AGAIN) of stating something I did not, with the intent of once again getting me banned, I DID NOT equate human life to a loaf of bread, but merely attempted to point out that their was value exchanged for value, and that DOES NOT equate to theft!
The ONLY? You have carefully checked the history of every nation and culture on Earth and discovered that only the British said slavery was unacceptable? Wanna bet?
that's known as karma. What goes around comes around. Deal with it.
It would be reverse-racism.
sounds fine by me. Or would we rather 'positive' racism?
It's lucky us white men still have our heads screwed <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">, imagine what would happen to the world without us? Probably some kind of tribal/sacrificial grunting types would take over.
In 1750 odd we were the ONLY slave holding culture to have EVER made slaveholding illegal. In 1830 odd we were the ONLY culture to outlaw the institution of slavery and ENFORCE the rule across the world.
We, the British, were the ones who effectively put an end to slavery in the west and thats fact Sean.
Feel free to point out any other culture that has owned slaves, and while making huge profits from exploiting the slaves has said 'this aint right' and outlawed it both in their homeland and across the world.
Karma? You want to resolve a complex moral issue by invoking KARMA???? Please.
As for 'reverse-racism', I'd personally prefer no racism. Remember the phrase, "An eye for an eye makes the world blind"?
Doesn't it occur to anyone that it is in fact gross racism of the highest order to assume that all blacks are victims and needing of some special 'helping hand', and similarly racist to assume that all whites are totally guilty and must provide said help?
Someone pointed out recently that what UN / US bleeding heart compensation lawyers are touting as "the greatest class action in history" would be illegal under The Law of England, since it would be racist slander / libel for the above reasons.
I suspect the brits banned slavery because they didnt need them anymore rather than humanitarian reasons.
A bit of both, actually. Remember that the Emancipation Act was around the time of the first Great Reform Act and so on. Britain was in quite a left-wing liberal reforming mood at the time (republicanism was even on the cards), so the suggestion of "humanitarian reasons" isn't to be scoffed at.
At the height of britains slave trade there were only 90 slave ships so you must be right that most went to the south americas.
Sorry but thats rubbish..The movement to end slavery started in 1754 while we still had massive power in America. Theres no way you can say they werent needed. slavery was banned by the British precisely because it was inhumane. It was a white Brit called Thomas Clarkeson who drew the sketch of the slaves packed into the slaveship that the reperations people are so fond of putting up on banners.
First debate on abolition in the house of commons was in 1789. We still had a vast empire then, despite being out of the states.
1806, a bill was passed forbidding British captains to sell slaves to foreign countries. In 1833 slavery was abolished throughout the empire. The Royal Navy tasked itself to putting down slavery across the globe.
Abolition of slavery was a truly revolutionary idea in the history of the world and its down to us Brits..Soon as we banned it the French followed and then more after them.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
I am partly of danish decent, my ancestors coming over at the end of the 18th century. Just as slavery was abolished. What about todays immigrants - those who have come to these shores since 1940? Surely they pay taxes now and yet it wasn't THEIR ancestors who comitted these crimes - in many cases their ancestors may well have been the VICTIMS! - should they pay?
Better still, TODAY'S immigrants are coming to this country mainly for economic reasons - they will benefit from a country built on the backs of these slaves. How about the UK charging a 'Slave Tax' to pay reparations? Pay £1,000 or you don't get citizenship...
thats a very good point and of course it will be you and I who pay these reperations. Now I dont know the stats for the UK but when slavery was at its peak in the US, just 1.7% of the population owned slaves. There were even fewer slave holders in the UK.
Probably less than one percent of the British public owned slaves and yet we are ALL going to have to pay for it today. My ancesters NEVER owned a slave, NEVER ran a slaver ship, and NEVER made a profit from slavery and yet my taxes WILL be used to pay off a bunch of greedy black fuckers who had even LESS to do with slaves than my right nut.
Africa wants reperations then they can pay back the billions in foreign aid they have received over the decades.