178

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.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 94 points 1 year ago

Here's a way to think of it:

If I steal all of your money and invest it to grow over time then I'll end up with even more money while you don't benefit from the growth that should have been yours. Now we have children and pass on our wealth. You pass on less because it was stolen, and I pass on more because of what I stole. This multiplies over the generations and a disparity is maintained. My offspring will have better educations and better opportunities because of the wealth they had access to, and yours will have fewer opportunities because you don't have the money to spend on them.

The goal of reparations is to attempt to correct some of this disparity. It tries to provide opportunities for people who don't have it but would have if something in the past weren't stolen.

For an example that's easy to see: In the US, black people are less likely to know how to swim. This has nothing to do with them being black, but what opportunities they had access to. This is for many reasons. One part of it is that most places had community pools, but they had restrictions for people of color. When this was outlawed, they instead just closed the pools or added memberships that required payment.

People also built up wealth over time through property, but black people were prevented from getting loans to buy property except in redlined places. This prevented them from building up generational wealth like white people were allowed to do. (This is ignoring the whole slavery thing...) It causes ripples through time where their children have less opportunities, which then causes their children to have fewer, and so on.

[-] Kaleunt17@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

The problem I have with this viewpoint is this.

Where does it start and where does it end?

World history is full of atrocities, crimes, war etc.

Additionally, many of the things which we now consider atrocity or crime might not even have been one in the past.

Fabricating such artificial claims is the same as Putin is doing by using the history book for creating claims on Ucraine.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

this is why the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy

"if we punish people for murder, what about self defense?"

or

"if we arrest people for selling meth, it'll end up making the state arrest people who drink coffee"

you can legislate for a specific instance and not have it spiral out of control into insanity.

Maybe some people would try to seek reparations for ridiculous stuff. It's exactly the purview of the law, politics and diplomacy to navigate that.

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 5 points 1 year ago

This isn't a slippery slope fallacy. Nobody's saying "if we let the gays marry the next thing that will happen is people will want to marry animals!"

What people are saying is, okay if this is being done in the interest of fairness, who else needs considered, and is it practical to consider them? Are we ever actually going to be able to achieve something close to fair?

In the US a great example in this discussion is native Americans. Do they get more or less for having their entire society destroyed, land confiscated, being driven on death marches to far away land, repeated treaty violations, decimated by smallpox, and many of the other tournaments?

I have native American, German, and Scottish ancestors that never owned a slave. I don't have "African", Irish, or "Asian" ancestors.

Do I get a check, do I get excluded, or do I pay for the sins of someone else's forefathers? And then because... despite all the struggles my ancestors endured themselves, I lived in a country that's trying to reconcile past sins of slavery they had nothing to do with directly (and hopefully were opposed to)?

Fact of the matter is, native americans suffered horribly, they just don't exist in any kind of numbers to make a stink about it, and many of them bred into the white population.

We're never going to get to "even" and we seriously need to consider if more unfair government wealth distribution is the solution to previous unfair government wealth distribution.

Hell I'm a full on Democrat and I strongly believe this will only make race relations worse. Like by a factor of 100 if they did that here. Two wrongs don't make a right, and there's no way sufficient time money and resources will be spent to actually make anything resembling fair happen here or in the US; you can't do that when you're trying to score political points.

Governments should be trying to help people from where they are now, not trying to reverse history and retroactively remedy history spread across hundreds of years.

[-] NotSoCoolWhip@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Well considering the last slave (coerced labor) was freed in the 1940s, it's still extremely recent. These are people's grandparents and great-grandparents. The velocity of money is very real.

https://youtu.be/j4kI2h3iotA?si=3h8t3bfODPKhULp1

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago

Honestly, it should never stop. There should be wealth, inheritance, and estate taxes that even out advantages and disadvantages over time. Poor people shouldn't be paying for it because of their race, rich people should because of their advantages.

[-] shastaxc@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is just communism. Distribute wealth until everyone is equal. You don't even need to bring race into the equation to achieve the same results as being proposed here.

[-] hypna@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

This is not communism.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

Communism wouldn't even have a need for money, so distributing wealth wouldn't exist.

[-] jemorgan@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

This is hard for me to commit to an opinion on. I totally understand the argument that systemic injustices of the past have impacts today on the opportunities presented to descendants of affected individuals, therefore proactive steps are required to achieve equity. But solutions like requiring blanket reparations from one race to another seem to take for granted that everyone of the first race has been equally privileged by historical injustices, while everyone of the second race has been equally disadvantaged.

This obviously isn’t true. People of color are disproportionately likely to be disadvantaged, but there are people of color who lead highly privileged lives, and there are white people who are highly disadvantaged due to coming from low socioeconomic class, poor health, lack of access to education, etc.

The concept of reparations being paid on a basis of race necessarily involves the government forcing disadvantaged white, Asian, Latino, and other non-black people to become more institutionally disadvantaged, so that a group that contains highly privileged people of color can become more economically advantaged.

Something absolutely needs to be done, we need to be actively fighting for equity, but it’s hard for me to accept an argument that that should be done on the basis of race instead of addressing the causes of class-based inequality that will benefit disadvantaged black people along with disadvantaged people of other races.

For example, instead of seeking to improve the intergenerational income mobility of POCs in a system that restricts the income mobility of those without wealthy parents, we should fix the system and ensure a level playing field between someone who is born to high-school drop outs, and someone who was born to Ivy League graduates.

[-] gothicdecadence@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

This is how I tend to view it too. We should be raising all poor people up and target wealth equality for everyone, regardless how they got there. I suppose reparations to POC would be a step in that direction but it by nature excludes people who might need help now. Idk, it's a hard subject for me to form a solid opinion on too but I think social safety nets need to be prioritized for all.

[-] orrk@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

sure, but now you are a godless commie who hates America.

[-] gothicdecadence@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Meh, fuck the people who think that. They don't contribute to a healthy, functioning society

[-] Omniraptor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

That's what it always boils down to, which is why I am now actually a communist.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

I don't know who implied paying it would be based on race. It should be based on class. Rich people are rich because they had advantages and exploited people. They should be taxed and the money should be used to raise up people who weren't as advantaged or exploitative.

[-] yiliu@informis.land 4 points 1 year ago

That's not reparations for slavery, then. That's just redistribution.

[-] jemorgan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The entire concept of reparations for slavery is that non-black people will be forced to pay black people money, either as a one time lump-sum payment, or an open-ended pseudo-UBI. Some suggestions include mandated documentation of ancestral slabery, but the most popular ones don’t. The vehicle for this payment would be either increased taxes, or redirection of taxes.

If you’re not talking about race-based redistribution of wealth, you’re not talking about ‘reparations,’ which is what this thread is about.

[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

There were families that made Bezos-class money at the height of slavery, and those families' descendants are still rich today.

At the very least, these families shouldn't be anonymously rich, they should be infamously rich, notoriously so. Even if a truth-and-reconciliation process is 'too much', let us at least have the truth out, and loud.

[-] Jeanschyso@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's not a reparations issue, it's an unfuck the cities that were fucked by Robert Moses and his buddies as well as funding public schools better, making hospitals public instead of privately owned, and changing the punitive justice system to a proper rehabilitation justice system.

Otherwise you'll just see short term happiness and provide arguments for "we're equal now, we paid reparations! What else do you want?"

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

I'd say both are required, and also reparations should never end. The rich should be taxed for their advantages and exploitation and money should be used to help raise poor people up. The problem can never be fixed. There will always be advantaged and disadvantaged people and exploiters and exploited people. Implying it should be a one time payment for a one time thing I think is missing what is trying to be solved.

[-] nomadjoanne@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I don't know. Plenty if other groups arrived much later in western countries, often with little or nothing to their names and feeling persecution, and have done much much better.

I'll give you that the specter of discrimination still haunted western institutions until quite recently. But blacks were not the only group that faced discrimination.

[-] FUBAR@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

I am not black or white. I can offer a perspective of an immigrant who isn’t white. Looking at how blacks were targeted for arrests and the disproportionate amount of arrests while being brought up in economically challenging environments, it is very hard to “move up”.

I immigrated to a western country with qualifications and with a good sum in my bank account and still it was challenging. I cannot imagine how generational oppression will do to a persons psyche and their worldview.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I used black people as an example, not to say they're the only group, because it's obvious to see. Literally everyone has been exploited by the rich.

this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
178 points (77.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35703 readers
1193 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS