quote:
Originally posted by BK_Inver:
Just started watching this programme and I don't like this guys premise. I think it is something that happened 200 years ago and I think perpeptuates the anachronism of the Empire.
I do not consider that I am in denial of history just because I do not think that Britain should pay reparations. I also don't think he can compare the holocaust with the slave trade. Reparations for the Jews began in historical terms were paid not long afterwards.
I have also seen similar programmes and they all seem to neglect to point out that African tribes were also quite happy to hand over their rivals in exchange for weapons in order to conquer other tribes.
Bedford seems to have chip on his shoulder in this area.
I mean how far back can we take this? I am sure with some creative thining I should be able to sue the Italian and French governments due to the Roman invasion and 1066. Sure it is interesting from a perspective of learning about the history of the slave trade and a reminder of the wrongs that not only Britain has committed in the name of empire and commerce. I think asking for reparations could if pushed start to cause resentment and more racial hatred, not an acceptence of our past and an ability to live easily with it.
The are a number of reasons for not paying reparations -
1. Too long ago, the British empire ended slverery in 1833 and banned the slave trade in 1807. Thus there is no-one alive today who was a slave or owned a slave in Britain or in Briatina posessions legally and there hasn't been for about a 100 years.
2. When slavery was lawful slave owners were legally (even if morally they were) not doing anything wrong and besides Britain was one of the first nations which had a lot of slaves to actually ban slavery.
3. What about the costs in ships, equipment, and lives of British soldiers and sailers in the efforts to suppress the slave trade, Britain was by far the most active major nation in the nineteenth century in trying to end the salve trade. Plus over 150,000 slaves were freed by British warships during the nineteenth century - that must count for something.
4. Who pays - few people's ancesters actually owned slaves so why should those who didn't have to pay compenstation?
5. Who gets the money? Many people of Afican decent in this country ancester's were never enslaved by British masters so why should they recieve anything e.g. immigrants to Britain/Britsih colonies after the end of slavery.
6. What about when only some of a person's ancesters were slaves do they only get a part share? I doubdt if there is sufficient data available to determine everyone's ancestry prior to 1833.
7. Some slave owners were black - why should their descendants get anything?
8. What about those who sold the slaves to the white slave traders i.e. various African chiefs and Arab slavers etc. They should pay a share.
9. Talking of which what about the whole issue of Islamic slavery, this was going on long before the first slaves were taken to the British colonies in the new world and still goes on today yet no-one is suggesting that they pay any compenstation. Should the descendants of white slaves recieve compensation from Morrocco and Algieria for slaves taken by the Barbary pirates?
I could go on but there are many practical and • pilosophical for there being no reparations for slavery.
Below is a web site that gives further reasons why reparations shouldn't be paid.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Reparations.html
