Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Could be worse, they could be paying reparations for the working the life-blood out of generations of people. They're getting off light.

Reparations for whom?

Paid by whom?

mick087

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Could be worse, they could be paying reparations for the working the life-blood out of generations of people. They're getting off light.

You have a point but slavery is such a big subject.
What part of history would we be starting and and the cut off point be?

And to who should reparations be paid?

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

Reparations for whom?

Paid by whom?

Maybe some of the former slave colonies could get reparations from the British state.

What's it to you anyway? What your problem with people paying for their past crimes against humanity?

Edgware

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe some of the former slave colonies could get reparations from the British state.

What's it to you anyway? What your problem with people paying for their past crimes against humanity?

Will someone please think of the children?

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe some of the former slave colonies could get reparations from the British state.

What's it to you anyway? What your problem with people paying for their past crimes against humanity?

Which former slave colony do you propose is most deserving of reparations?

I don't recall saying that I had a problem with anything, I'm just asking what your proposal is.

suicide_circus

is slavery/colonial guilt unique to white people?

is_that_so

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe some of the former slave colonies could get reparations from the British state.

What's it to you anyway? What your problem with people paying for their past crimes against humanity?

Reparations come from taxes collected by the state, taxes collected from some of the very people, whose forebears they may well have oppressed.

is_that_so

suicide_circus wrote: »

is slavery/colonial guilt unique to white people?

Historically they were probably best at colonisation!

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

I don't recall saying that I had a problem with anything.

is_that_so wrote: »

Reparations come from taxes collected by the state, taxes collected from some of the very people, whose forebears they may well have oppressed.

Are you against reparations in principle lads? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.

The details could be worked out afterwards.

mick087

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe some of the former slave colonies could get reparations from the British state.

What's it to you anyway? What your problem with people paying for their past crimes against humanity?

To recoup the compensation if the UK paid out, Should the UK look to Ireland Denmark Norway Swdeen?

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What's it to you anyway? What your problem with people paying for their past crimes against humanity?

If you find anyone who owned slaves, maybe you could ask them yourself?

Wibbs

suicide_circus wrote: »

is slavery/colonial guilt unique to white people?

These days yes, historically not so much. On colonisation, yeah Europeans were prone to and very good at it and had been since way back. Some of it down to limited living space and later down to the age of exploration on the back of trying to cut the Arabic world out of the middleman position they held between us and China. That's why Columbus was sailing west and happened to bump into a "new" continent. Better ships and better tech arising from the steady pressure of competition within Europe made them largely unbeatable.

Much of the African slave trade was run by Arab traders and syndicates, before and after the Atlantic slave trade was in place with Europeans. Unlike Christianity which ignores slavery entirely in her texts Islam has quite the number of regulations around the practice. It's easy to forget White Europeans were pretty much the first to ban it. First in Europe itself, which under Rome for example slavery was a given part of society(well after Christianity took over too), though took a very different form to the later Atlantic trade. It wasn't race based for a start and was generally less nasty for want of a better word and slaves could and regularly did buy their freedom or be set free by their owners. Many were the descendants of slaves who made it in Rome. Many African cultures themselves had slavery and it's still present in some parts of that continent. Put it another way White slavers didn't show up to an African port and march inland to places they didn't know surrounded on all sides by people who could kick their arse and carry off the locals to slavery. They were buyers at the source retail end for the most part. They weren't the supply chain or middlemen.

As far as oul Whitey being the ultimate baddy. I'm reminded of a passage in a book I read years ago entitled "Chickenhawk" about a Vietnam helicopter pilots experiences. In it he notes that one supply helicopter went missing with all crew and after weeks and weeks of looking was never found and declared lost. What happened next was all the quartermasters in the area who had been "skimming" supplies for fun and profit said that they had supplies on that chopper to balance the books. As the author noted no wonder it crashed, it weighed 100 fcuking tons on take off.

There is an element of that in the current narrative. White men are the boogyman who some choose to drop everything on and are piling more and more on and more groups get involved as they go. Well they may have some good reasons, but more than that it's simple and convenient and saves people from pointing a mirror at themselves and firing all responsibility elsewhere. And yes it is racism. It has exactly the same attributes of singling out one group and ascribing specific and negative traits onto them because of the colour of their skin.

Wibbs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Are you against reparations in principle lads? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.

Yes. Unless it is within living memory and the victims are still with us. That's my cut off.

Reparations for something that happened centuries ago from descendants who had nothing to do with it is bloody ridiculous. Maybe we should ask the Scandinavians for a few quid because of the Vikings and Normans. The Italian banks would be emptied in a day, the Mongolians would have to look down the back of the sofa for billions in spare cash too.

jackboy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Are you against reparations in principle lads? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.

Reparations are great. I’m looking forward to the big cheque from the brits for all that they done to my ancestors.

splinter65

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe some of the former slave colonies could get reparations from the British state.

What's it to you anyway? What your problem with people paying for their past crimes against humanity?

I’m part British and part Native American, so I got me a cheque coming from the Scandinavian’s, the Italians and the Spanish.
Where’s my money at???!!!

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes. Unless it is within living memory and the victims are still with us. That's my cut off.

Are these arbitrary rules you made up to satisfy something within yourself?

Should the children/grand children of Jews who had their property taken in WWII get it back? If they should then why shouldn't the great grand children of slaves be compensated for the theft of generations of their forefathers labour?

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Are you against reparations in principle lads? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.

The details could be worked out afterwards.

If the reparations could be paid to the people directly affected then its a great idea, but those people are in most cases long dead.

Now of you could answer my question I'd be much obliged.

Tired Gardener

Slavery is sadly still a very real thing for 40 million people today.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/feb/25/modern-slavery-trafficking-persons-one-in-200

In the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished chattel slavery, but the number of people currently enslaved around the world is far greater than the number of slaves during the historical Atlantic slave trade.

Yes the Atlantic Slave trade was wretched,
Yes the Barbary slave trade was monstrous,
Yes the Arab slave trade was deplorable,

However, shouldn't we be focused on trying to stamp out slavery that exist now instead of focusing on trying to fix the past. The past is gone, we learn from it and strive to make a better world for everyone... or at least I thought that was the main reason to learn history.

Wibbs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Are these arbitrary rules you made up to satisfy something within yourself?

Nothing arbitrary about it, it's thought out and logical.

Your position is the more arbitrary. It gives no time scale where we cut off this kinda payment, or the seemingly collective guilt for it. Like I said do we ask the Scandinavians for cash? Do we ask the Algerians and Moroccans for compensation for the slave raid on Baltimore in the 17th century? Do we ask the English for cash because of Cromwell? No, because that would be bloody ridiculous. Or is it only certain groups that deserve the victimhood status and compensation?

Should the children/grand children of Jews who had their property taken in WWII get it back? If they should then why shouldn't the great grand children of slaves be compensated for the theft of generations of their forefathers labour?

WW2 is in living memory. There aren't too many left who remember it, but they exist. And again where does it end? There were millions of displaced people because of WW2. Do their descendants get the nod too?

Wibbs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If they should then why shouldn't the great grand children of slaves be compensated for the theft of generations of their forefathers labour?

Should the great great grandchildren of women, IE everyone, get some compensation for the unpaid work of women as housewives for many centuries? Should damned near everyone in Russia get compensation for their ancestors who were unpaid bought and sold chattel serfs until the early 20th century? Should those who owned land and property and valuables in pre revolutionary Russia seek compensation from the Russian government today because the communists stole it?

Or because they're White so it doesn't count? Again the hierarchy of victimhood all too common today, as is the mindless simplistic oppressor and oppressed narrative. Just like current feminism can usually be distilled into "women are agentless victims and it's always men's fault", swap out "women" with of any victim groups de jour and add "White" to the men's fault part. Job done. Idiotic job but...

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

Nothing arbitrary about it, it's thought out and logical. Your position is the more arbitrary.

I didn't give an arbitrary cut-off point, you did, and if 'living relatives only' was the criteria for reparations/compensation then plaintiffs just need tie people up in processes until they've all died then hey-presto responsibility disappears as if there never was any. Can you not see the issues that arise there? Your arbitrary cut-off point is neither morally nor logically sound.

It gives no time scale where we cut off this kinda payment, or the seemingly collective guilt for it. Like I said do we ask the Scandinavians for cash? Do we ask the Algerians and Moroccans for compensation for the slave raid on Baltimore in the 17th century? Do we ask the English for cash because of Cromwell? No, because that would be bloody ridiculous. Or is it only certain groups that deserve the victimhood status and compensation?

This is an example of the continuum problem/fallacy. Because it's difficult to determine when grey becomes white/black we will just pick a colour and decide there is no grey.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I didn't give an arbitrary cut-off point, you did, and if 'living relatives only' was the criteria for reparations/compensation then plaintiffs just need tie people up in processes until they've all died then hey-presto responsibility disappears as if there never was any. Can you not see the issues that arise there? Your arbitrary cut-off point is neither morally nor logically sound.



This is an example of the continuum problem/fallacy. Because it's difficult to determine when grey becomes white/black we will just pick a colour and decide there is no grey.

Wibbs has given a very detailed breakdown of his reasoning. You haven't added anything of value to the discussion, particularly in terms of qualifying your own opinion.

You still haven't stated which "former slave colony" you feel is most deserving of reparations for example...

Wibbs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I didn't give an arbitrary cut-off point, you did, and if 'living relatives only' was the criteria for reparations/compensation then plaintiffs just need tie people up in processes until they've all died then hey-presto responsibility disappears as if there never was any. Can you not see the issues that arise there? Your arbitrary cut-off point is neither morally nor logically sound.

Arbitrary:Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

Just because it doesn't agree with your vague notions of timescales and recipients of reparations doesn't really count as I gave reasoning and necessity with a sideorder of principle, you've given no definitive point where compensation stops or who it should apply to. You're the more "arbitrary" I'm afraid.

Again I ask you where and when does this compensation stop? The Irish famine? The highland clearances? Russian serfs? After all they were still serfs after the emancipation of slaves in the US and long after slavery was outlawed in western Europe.

This is an example of the continuum problem/fallacy. Because it's difficult to determine when grey becomes white/black we will just pick a colour and decide there is no grey.

Nope, unlike in interwebs oneupmanship where lazy fallacy memes get bandied about, in the real world we acknowledge the grey and decide to make a mark where it's most logical and yes practical to do so.

Tony EH

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m part British and part Native American, so I got me a cheque coming from the Scandinavian’s, the Italians and the Spanish.
Where’s my money at???!!!

The British part cancels all that out.

Sorry bud.

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

White ... victimhood ... feminism ... men's

I think you might be shouting at scarecrow. You may well be mistaking me for a 'libtard' or whatever the latest dimwitted term has been shat out from the anus of the dark web.

I didn't mention any of those categories yet you seem determined to shoehorn them into the discussion. I get the impression you've been drinking large gulps from the reactionary well.

Reparations should not be about race or gender they should be about harm done and by whom.

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

you've given no definitive point where compensation stops or who it should apply to.

Because there isn't one and you're using its absence as an excuse to ignore that there might well be a perfectly legitimate call for reparation. You seem to have more of a problem with the who/how of reparations rather than whether the claim is morally justified or not.

Again I ask you where and when does this compensation stop? The Irish famine? The highland clearances? Russian serfs? After all they were still serfs after the emancipation of slaves in the US and long after slavery was outlawed in western Europe.

The difficulty of determining an end/beginning has no bearing on whether or not it should be done for moral reasons. Shashi Tharoor has suggested a £1 reparation should be paid by Britain for its crimes against humanity in India. The salient point being an admission of guilt can be as valuable as any payment.

Nope, unlike in interwebs oneupmanship where lazy fallacy memes get bandied about, in the real world we acknowledge the grey and decide to make a mark where it's most logical and yes practical to do so.

Pointing out fallacies exposes bullshit.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because there isn't one and you're using its absence as an excuse to ignore that there might well be a perfectly legitimate call for reparation. You seem to have more of a problem with the who/how of reparations rather than whether the claim is morally justified or not.



The difficulty of determining an end/beginning has no bearing on whether or not it should be done for moral reasons. The Indian critic who of British misrule has suggested a £1 reparation should be paid by Britain for its crimes against humanity in India. The salient point being an admission of guilt is can be as valuable as any payment.




Pointing out fallacies expose bullshit.

You haven't made one reasonable case for reparations being a good idea.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

You haven't made one reasonable case for reparations being a good idea.

Because people were harmed and others profited - it is a well established method of accepting guilt and expressing remorse. It's self-explanatory. It's regretful that this is hard for you to grasp.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Because people were harmed and others profited - it is a well established method of accepting guilt and expressing remorse. It's self-explanatory. It's regretful that this is hard for you to grasp.

It's bizarre that you feel that tax payers (of all ethnicities) should pay money to descendants of people who are long dead, who never experienced the hardships their ancestors experienced because of some feeling of remorse.

You haven't addressed the point that it is almost impossible to draw a line with regard to how far back in history these feelings of remorse should reach. Most cultures have been wronged by somebody at some point in time and are by your logic morally entitled to reparations.

As with most of the opinions you share on this site, this one is half baked, ill thought out and devoid of logic, but as always you have the magic ingredient of righteous indignation, it can make a meal out of the most rudimentary of ingredients.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

It's bizarre that you feel that tax payers (of all ethnicities) should pay money to descendants of people who are long dead, who never experienced the hardships their ancestors experienced because of some feeling of remorse.

So you think Irish tax-payers have no responsibility for clerical abuse? Of course taxpayers should make a contribution, but you do have a point. If the world was just the Church would have had its assets seized and turned over to the state to be used to compensate victims/relatives and pay reparations. Ideally the corporations that profited from past crimes should be made pay reparations and apologise.

But, alas, corporations are legal entities that are designed with the express purpose of distancing shareholders from 'externalities' like inter-generational torture, murder and rape.

You haven't addressed the point that it is almost impossible to draw a line with regard to how far back in history these feelings of remorse should reach.

And you seem to be unable to grasp that not having a defined cut off point doesn't mean that there shouldn't be reparations, apologies and remorse.

As with most of the opinions you share on this site, this one is half baked, ill thought out and devoid of logic, but as always you have the magic ingredient of righteous indignation, it can make a meal out of the most rudimentary of ingredients.

Wait a second.. are you keeping a little journal of most of my opinions? That's a bit creepy. Who are you?