This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states “the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries”.

The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That’s 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.

Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?

When I’ve paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?

Isn’t this just a country that isn’t doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying “oh there’s this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling”?

Shouldn’t payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?

(Please don’t flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don’t know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)

  • WorldWideLem@lemmy.world
    3411·
    1 year ago

    Group A was wronged by entity B. Group A goes to court to seek restitution from entity B. Courts rule that entity B did in fact cause damages to group A and must be held liable.

    That’s all reparations are. Entity B is your government. It’s the same legal entity as it was 190 years ago, regardless of the composition of the population it represents. If a group was wronged by their government, this is their only means to legal restitution. Unfortunately since the primary form of income for some governments is taxation, it means people complain about paying for things when that’s not exactly what’s happening.

    The alternative is to say that if a government “runs out the clock” and is able to avoid responsibility until the population turns over, then they can no longer be held liable for anything they did prior to that point. That’s not a very good position, in my opinion.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        0·
        1 year ago

        Because of supply and demand. The transatlantic slave trade created demand for slaves much higher than what existed before that point. That creates an environment where being a slaver is rewarded, and therefore not being a slaver was punished. If, for example, a republican billionaire says “I’ll give 10000$ to anyone who kills a democrat” they can’t just claim they’re innocent when democrat death rates go through the roof.

    • faintwhenfree@lemmus.orgEnglish
      99·
      1 year ago

      I understand what Britain did was wrong and requires corrective measures, but personally I just think financial reparation is not a very bright idea. For

      1. How do you ensure the money actually goes to victims in foreign countries
      2. If its given to their govts, what assurances UK has it’ll be used to improvement of victim’s life
      3. It can very well be used to fill the pockets of rich politician
      4. Even if ignoring all three, UK gets money in hand of ech victim personally, still doesn’t help the fundamental problem of marginalised community, money will run out so far in their hands, they’ll have no real impact.

      I my opinion a 100 fully paid scholarships to university specifically for victims is a way better way to help them then just handing cash.

      • Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world
        93·
        1 year ago

        Now explain how you came up with 100 as a good number of scholarships before defining the word “victim” to not apply to anyone currently alive.

          • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
            42·
            1 year ago

            Lol someone downvoted but you’re right, he obviously forgot the % sign. That comment is downvoted too even though it’s entirely reasonable. Fucking commies on here.

        • faintwhenfree@lemmus.orgEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          One I meant to say 1000 and two I meant to give a random number not a speicifc number. I’m not qualified enough to do that kind of assessment. But handing cash to solve one particular injustice rarely solves problems across the world.

          Also defining victim would be a bigger Challange as well. I’m not saying I have all the solution, I’m just saying giving scholarships of value of whatever amt smarter people have agreed is what UK should pay for their past, is objectivly better than handing out cash.