Jealousy, obviously. Just nasty.
Reparations discussion
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Jealousy, obviously. Just nasty.
Good luck.
No one said it would be easy. I mean, this is the 400th anniversary of the landing of the first slaves at Jamestown, the 156th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, the 55th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act... the movement to return what's due has been ongoing for a long time and I don't see why they'll relent until something is done.
If it happens situationally, I'm sure the community would be happy to see anyone benefit but if it is happening as a policy "No you do not deserve this and your hardship isn't the same", then it's just unfair.
Re "I argued that slavery was legal, and that the notion of reparations is therefore not applicable", I accepted in this specific case (German treatment of the Jews) that something being 'legal' in national terms was not a valid excuse, and indeed mooted the point that it promoted the idea of 'international law' to deal with situations where a state passed laws which ran contrary to the accepted morality of the world as a whole (and indeed the morality of the nation in which the laws were passed).
There is a world of difference between the institutionalised anti-semitism of the Third Reich, which would have been seen by just about everyone, including many Germans, as wrong, and the practice of slavery between the 16th and 19th centuries, which most of the population would have regarded as the normal order of things.
From today's standpoint, of couse slavery is wrong and immoral. You'll get no argument from me on that. However, in the 18th century and before, that was not the view generally held. The use of slave labour, and trading in slaves, was legitimate and not widely questioned. We may believe that it was wrong, but the majority of people who lived at the time did not.
There is a general legal principle that laws only come into effect from the time that they are enacted, and actions which would have transgressed against those laws but preceded them cannot be subject to prosecution.
Now you’re back to arguing they didn’t know any better.
Look, if your version of engaging in this debate is bouncing between two untenable positions and then claiming not to have argued said positions, while leaving a trail of evidence proving otherwise, then you might want to rethink your views.
I have never asserted that "they didn't know any better" - I have no idea whether they did or not (and neither am I arrogant enough to say that the view we hold today is "better" than the view commonly held at the time, and certainly not to assert that I would have been enlightened enough had I lived at that time to have been an opponent of slavery). I have simply stated that -
- slavery was a legal and accepted practice, and the idea of reparations (a legal term) is therefore untenable.
- if there were people who questioned the morality of slavery, they were most likely a minority (perhaps even a very small one at that).
You raised the question regarding the reparations paid by West Germany to Israel, presumably to demonstrate a set of circumstances where they have been paid in spite of the apparent legality of the actions perpetrated by the Third reich. I conceded that the actions of the German state were abhorrent, and that it raised the question of whether a state should be allowed to permit something in law which the rest of the world, and many of its own people, believed to be fundamentally wrong. I also pointed out that this didn't present a true parallel with the issue of African slavery practiced in the US because -
- the world view at the time was that slavery was a perfectly valid practice, so America was not out of step with the rest of the world, whereas the atrocities committed by Germany were quite obviously wrong at the time.
- many of the people of West Germany who were complicit in the crimes committed against the Jews were still alive, and it was reasonable to expect them to accept accountability (a situation that certainly doesn't exist regarding America and slavery).
My arguments have been consistent and predominantly fact based. There has been no bouncing between positions (tenable or otherwise).
I think the nub of the question is whether people today should be accountable for actions by their national predecessors over which they obviously had no control or influence. Some, who seem to think they should, dodge the issue somewhat by laying the responsibility at the feet of the government arguing that this is an entity that also existed at the time of slavery. They conveniently ignore the fact that the people paying any 'reparations' will be the current taxpayers, so I believe it is reasonable to ask the question what crimes the current taxpayers have committed to warrant such punishment. As a UK citizen, I certainly wouldn't want our government to squander taxpayers' money on 'reparations' for our nation's past 'misdeeds', and I can't imagine the US taxpayers would have much enthusiasm for such action either.
It might also be reasonable to ask who, exactly, any reparations should be paid to - the victims of historical slavery all died a long time ago, the ancestry of the present Afro-Caribbean population in the US will be a very tangled web indeed, and demonstrating how any particular individual today has been damaged by the practice of slavery and quantifying that damage will be nigh on impossible.
I think you bear a responsibility which is a bit different. You've gained the benefits of your predecessors actions, why not the costs? Incidentally I doubt Germans were particularly enthusiastic about paying reparations, they did though.
Are the European countries that enslaved them and brought them to the US to be sold going to chip in (that includes my country, and probably most people’s country here - England - which was the second largest importer of slaves, I believe). They’re the ones that hunted them down, enslaved them and brought them to the US to sell like cattle. What about the tribes in Africa that enslaved other tribes and sold them to the Europeans for guns and other goods? Why would all of these participants be exempt from contributing (we can quibble about comparative responsibility, i.e. percentages, but surely all of these actors are culpable and should have liability, too)?
Love the simplification of the issue by some in here. As if anyone who doesn’t like the idea MUST be racist. The people that will pay for it indirectly are generations removed from slavery. When the Japanese paid reparations to prisoners of war, like my grandfather, a lot of them were still alive. Here they’d have to trace lineage multiple generations. I’m not sure where the line is, but as some point the sins of the father (or great great grandfather) should not be attributed to the sons. Hell, a large portion of the US weren’t even states when slavery ended. How do you account for that? Millions of taxpayers who come from immigrants that came to the US in the 1900s and had nothing to do with slavery. Why should their tax dollars go to this?
Slavery is a terrible thing, but it’s not as simple as if you’re for reparations you’re good and virtuous and if you’re not you’re a racist bigot. Reparations should have been made a century-plus ago. It sounds great now, but it’s not as simple as people want to make out.
Love the simplification of the issue by some in here. As if anyone who doesn’t like the idea MUST be racist. The people that will pay for it indirectly are generations removed from slavery. When the Japanese paid reparations to prisoners of war, like my grandfather, a lot of them were still alive. Here they’d have to trace lineage multiple generations. I’m not sure where the line is, but as some point the sins of the father (or great great grandfather) should not be attributed to the sons. Hell, a large portion of the US weren’t even states when slavery ended. How do you account for that? Millions of taxpayers who come from immigrants that came to the US in the 1900s and had nothing to do with slavery. Why should their tax dollars go to this?
Slavery is a terrible thing, but it’s not as simple as if you’re for reparations you’re good and virtuous and if you’re not you’re a racist bigot. Reparations should have been made a century-plus ago. It sounds great now, but it’s not as simple as people want to make out.
Last edited:
If that’s the rationale, shouldn’t the Portuguese, British, French, Spanish and Dutch chip in too? Serious question given who enslaved them and how they got to the US.
The West German government negotiated with the newly formed state of Israel over the issue, so they paid the reparations by agreement rather than as a result of any legal enforcement (the Israeli argument was pretty solid, and the need was current and urgent as it dealt with the cost of resettling holocaust survivors).
The issue of responsibility for historical events is complex. Certainly countries like the US and UK benefited financially from slavery and, in the case of the UK, imperialism as well, but then so have plenty of other countries. Where do you draw the line in terms of paying for the actions in your history? Is there a point in history beyond which you don't go? For example, the Pyramids in Egypt were built by slaves, and I'm sure Egypt's economy has benefited from the resulting tourism. Maybe Spain should be compensating most of South and Central America for the deaths of large parts of the indigenous populations and looting copious amounts of gold.
It may seem callous, but I see history as precisely that. The sell by date for any event, in terms of compensating victims and punishing perpetrators, is when there are still victims and perpetrators around to be compensated and punished. In any case, the matter of compensation should only arise if there has been wrongdoing (and we have to remember that slavery was not viewed that way at the time).
There is no case for punishing people who weren't the perpetrators to compensate people who weren't the victims.
Perhaps we are fortunate to have been born in countries which have become rich through their history, both good and bad. That is just pure luck. We didn't exercise a choice over where we we're born, and we cannot be held responsible or accountable for what happened in our nations' now distant past.
Good, logical posts.
Just like with tracing back family lines for those owed reparations, you can do the same for current rich families and big corporations who built their wealth on slavery. They probably have spent a lot of money cleaning their past, so it will be hard, but it's a job that must be done. After all, it was them who benefited the most. It should be them who pays the monetary reparation, they have enough.
As for the rest of society, pretty much we have been all benefited from slavery, one way or another, and the only way we can repay this debt, is making sure shit like that never happens again, making sure everybody has all the same possibilities in life. How to do this? Push for a society where access to quality healthcare and education is for everybody.
As for the rest of society, pretty much we have been all benefited from slavery, one way or another, and the only way we can repay this debt, is making sure shit like that never happens again, making sure everybody has all the same possibilities in life. How to do this? Push for a society where access to quality healthcare and education is for everybody.
So someone multiple generations removed from slavery should have to pay for something their ancestors did? It’s easy to spend other people’s money, huh? What if a lot of those descendants are now average middle class families, they have enough so take their money and give it to descendants of slaves? What if an ancestor went broke and someone from a slave owner lineage was raised in poverty and earned everything they have now? Take that too? Are you going to trace all the Europeans that were complicit in the slave trade and make their descendants pay too? Liability shouldn’t trace with DNA.
The entire world has benefited from slavery at some point. By your logic people would be paying reparations to each other all over the world.
Interestingly, I think a lot of, perhaps most, African slaves were captured and traded by Africans (especially captives from inter-tribal wars or convicted criminals). When Britain abolished slavery, one of the people who complained very bitterly was an African king (something along the lines of it being wrong to abolish a trade ordained by God himself).
It's very hard to comprehend from today's perspective just how differently slavery was viewed in the 15th-18th centuries.
Yeah, I’m aware (referenced in other posts), poorly phrased there. No clue what the ratio is of those enslaved by Europeans or Africans, though. Either way, three continents of culpable actors.
Your point about historical perspective is dead on. It’s hard to look back and put yourself in peoples’s shoes from back then. We have the benefit of years of progression of society, enlightenment and scientific advancement, so to us the rationales, xenophobia and feelings of superiority that were basis of things like imperialism and slavery are hard to judge from the lens of someone who was brought up in that world.
Dream on. Even if tracing the corporations and wealthy individuals were achievable, it would be completely unrealistic to prosecute them and wouldn't survive any kind of challenge through the courts.
It is a well established legal principle that laws only take effect from the time they are enacted: they are not applied retrospectively (i.e. if a person or company acted in a way that was legal at the time, they cannot be prosecuted for those actions even if they were made illegal at a later point).
There is no way any corporations or wealthy individuals are going to be held to account so, if this crazy notion of paying reparations becomes a reality, it will be the taxpayers footing the bill.
Generations after, descendants of slaves are still paying the price. It would only be fair that CURRENT rich families and corporations that built their fortunes on slavery (and have enjoyed it since), pay some back.
Now, that's only if it's decided there must be reparations.
Like I said in post 5 of this thread, the only reparations I would personally want is moving quickly onto a society that provides the same opportunities for everybody.
ps. If a lot of those descendants are average middle class now, that's enough punishment.
Maybe make it voluntary then?
Punishment? Why should they be punished? Because their great great grandparents owned slaves? You can’t seriously advocate hurting people that had absolutely nothing to do with the problem?
Slavery was terrible but it’s not fair to blame/punish people who’s only relation to it is having some % of lineage of slave owners.
And why is it fair that current rich people pay for things they didn’t do? Because they’re rich?
That's what you're advocating by not understanding how generational wealth works as you insist on the status quo.
Perhaps a better approach all round would be to identify some projects which benefit the Afro-Caribbean communities in the US, and approach large corporations to provide sponsorship in return for some good publicity. Forget any notions of reparations or blame for historical wrongs, and just present the whole plan as a positive move. Additionally, to allow individuals to contribute if they feel strongly about it, the government could raise capital for the projects by issuing bonds.
No, I’m advocating not stealing from descendants of people from 150+ years ago because of things their ancestors did. Does it matter how well of those descendants are or if they’re pope white people do we mandate they give up what little they have too?
There are multiple generations of separation. You can’t just advocate reapportioning wealth based on genetics. Where do you draw the line? If you’re trying to trace wealth directly from slave ownership, you’re not going to find an ample amount for reparations of slave descendants.
And what status quo? That some have more than others and some people earn more than others? Yes, I like capitalism. I like equality of opportunity. I don’t like equality of outcomes. You can’t just make up for past errors by hurting others now.
That's easy. Access to the same education and healthcare a wealthy kid gets. Instead of sponsorships, large corporations needs to to pay their fair share of taxes to help make it done. We all need to pay our fair share of taxes.
Agree with the general sentiment. No need to make it about reparations or payback (the original criminals are all dead, same as the slaves), but about doing the right thing now.
Last edited:
No, I’m advocating not stealing from descendants of people from 150+ years ago because of things their ancestors did. Does it matter how well of those descendants are or if they’re pope white people do we mandate they give up what little they have too?
There are multiple generations of separation. You can’t just advocate reapportioning wealth based on genetics. Where do you draw the line? If you’re trying to trace wealth directly from slave ownership, you’re not going to find an ample amount for reparations of slave descendants.
And what status quo? That some have more than others and some people earn more than others? Yes, I like capitalism. I like equality of opportunity. I don’t like equality of outcomes. You can’t just make up for past errors by hurting others now.
Like I said, you dont understand how generational wealth works.
It is not arrogant to say that the view held today (slavery = bad and illegal) is better than the view held at the time (slavery = legal and black people = inferior). The view held when slavery was legal was a repugnant one and it's weird to even question that or suggest that moral comparisons between the two is arrogant.
Families of slave owners continue to benefit across generations through inheritance and the societal advantage that comes as part of being an entitled upper class. The impact and repurcussions of slavery didn't end just when slavery was abolished. Generations of people entered the world from behind the start line in marginalized and empoverished communities trying to build up capital, trust, and clout in a racist system stacked against them.
My personal belief is that there are a lot more "innocent" people that are going to be punished than those who benefitted from being slave owners. I mean, you'd be punishing families of those who fought to abolish slavery and lost family members by doing so. A lot of people in the "north" who fought for the Union were against slavery - how can they be asked to pay for this when their family members have given the ultimate sacrifice?
The better solution in my opinion is not reparation, but for the government to invest healthcare / housing in these poor areas - be you black, white, Hispanic etc
The better solution in my opinion is not reparation, but for the government to invest healthcare / housing in these poor areas - be you black, white, Hispanic etc
Do you think these posts are painting you in a good light? If anything its leading me to think you might be a bit of a cnut....
I’m quite aware of how generational wealth works, thank you. Are you? Are you aware of what the south was like in the reconstruction era? If you have some idea that all these rich slave owners from 1860 have produced a legacy of rich families all from wealth generated in the slave trade you need to crack a history book.
You may want to read this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/04/04/how-souths-slave-owning-dynasties-regained-their-wealth-after-civil-war/?outputType=amp
“In 1870, at the height of Reconstruction, former slave-owning families had about 15 percent less wealth than equivalent families who owned fewer people. But by 1880, the sons of slave owners were back atop the Southern socioeconomic hierarchy.”
“We can rule out the generational effect of slave owners’ estates and other resources.“
“Unlike in much of the rest of the South, wealthy white families in Sherman’s path often had their land appropriated, seized or destroyed by Union forces. By 1870, affected families had a staggering 40 percent less wealth than similar folks in nearby counties.”
The article goes on to state that the sons of slave owners who ended up in a better position a decade or two later was likely due to utilizing social connections. That has nothing to do with generational wealth - wealth was lost and redistributed. “The success of slave owners’ sons after emancipation hints that reducing wealth inequality isn’t just a matter of redistributing wealth, Boustan said. It’s a matter of reducing other barriers as well, such as elite personal and professional networks and other intangible privileges.”
Hmm sounds like equality of opportunity to me?
You seem to have a problem with generational wealth. You’re probably a huge proponent of the estate tax. That’s fine, you’re entitled to that view. I don’t believe in re-distributing wealth. Nor do I believe in punishing innocent people for things ancestors generations removed did. Sometimes life isn’t fair and you have to play the cards you were dealt. No one in their right mind will argue that blacks in the US have had a fair shake over US history, but we’ve made fantastic strides and need to do more to make opportunities equal for all. You can’t fix the wrongs of the past by wronging a new generation of innocent people using some fools errand of generational wealth tracing to steal from the well off to give to descendants of people aggrieved 150 years ago. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
i worked hard to be born to a rich family and use my education to get rich when father had his estate seized for crimes against humanity
imagine writing several paragraphs about slaves and their descendants not having equal opportunities for centuries without connecting the dots
There's a distinct difference between comparing the social norms of the present with those during slavery times and recognizing the economic and moral impact that continues to pervade wide swaths of African-American communities today. The historiography of actions taken hundreds of years ago up until a few decades ago continues to have a massive intergenerational effect on those living in the present. Therefore a few things need to happen (imo).
1. There has to be a government endorsed recognition that this happened, along with a formal apology, and a concession that the effects of the past continue to plague citizens in the present.
2. A proper government campaign to educate the public about what actually happened during that era.
3. A plan to provide targeted assistance to communities and individuals who can trace their lineage to slavery and Jim Crow, all the way through the civil and voting rights act periods - which excepting anyone who recently immigrated from other parts of the world, would be a vast majority of African Americans in the US.
I’m guessing you’re referring to me and just couldn’t be bothered to quote me.
You may want to re-read my post if so.
My point is simple - you can’t make up for that by taking from people generations removed and giving it to people generations removed for inequalities their ancestors faced. You don’t treat people unfairly now to make up for past unfair treatment, and certainly not at the expense of innocent people.
Looks like the deliberate delay tactics by the original racists is working through people with views like this.
No, I’m advocating not stealing from descendants of people from 150+ years ago because of things their ancestors did. Does it matter how well of those descendants are or if they’re pope white people do we mandate they give up what little they have too?
There are multiple generations of separation. You can’t just advocate reapportioning wealth based on genetics. Where do you draw the line? If you’re trying to trace wealth directly from slave ownership, you’re not going to find an ample amount for reparations of slave descendants.
And what status quo? That some have more than others and some people earn more than others? Yes, I like capitalism. I like equality of opportunity. I don’t like equality of outcomes. You can’t just make up for past errors by hurting others now.
you really can though, even easier if you add an additional 10% tax for people who complain about it
Doesn't this already happen every day through affirmative action and diversity programs ?
I agree with the sentiments of your post.
I think there is recognition and certainly education. Not sure if you’re in the US or not, but this isn’t something that’s skipped over in history books. Acknowledgement and education about slavery is everywhere in society and schools.
I also have no problem with helping those effected. I think cash reparations is a complicated issue because of how far removed people are but if were to happen it should come from taxpayer money (which again I think poses issues because so many taxpayers also had zero relation to those events - think of all the post-slavery immigrants to the US).
I 100% think any idea of tracing wealth and taking from their innocent ancestors to redistribute to people who’s ancestors were slaves is wrong, which is what some are happily advocating here.
Well, not in America, thankfully. If I wanted to live in a socialist country I’d go back to Europe. We clearly have fundamental differing views on policy, which is fine, but neither of us will change each other’s views on the merits of wealth redistribution so let’s not bother trying.