Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

But the people who owe the debt are dead and aren't paying the bill, people completely innocent of these historical crimes are paying, this is where your logic falls flat on its face. But by all means keep pulling on heart strings.

You're scrabbling in the dirt looking for excuses. The billions of GBP extracted from generations of torturous labour, along with billions more that compensated slavers, went a long way to developing Britain's infrastructure, institutions and corporations. Tough shit if Britain has to pay its bills for the central role it played in one of the worst crimes against humanity in world history.

Why is the idea of reparations so painful for you? What's wrong?

Wibbs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Why is the idea of reparations so painful for you? What's wrong?

Because where does it end? Simple question. I have at least agreed that reparations can be in play and have given a cut off point, one you don't agree with but a point nonetheless.

Can you answer this please?

Me. Earlier. wrote: »

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?

Me. Earliererer wrote: »

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?

Actually on the last example, should those who were wealthy and had their stuff taken by various regimes be compensated many generations on? I mean you mentioned Jewish families who lost stuff because of Hitler and his minions? Should the Irish people pay reparations to Anglo Irish families who lost their holdings during the revolution? Or is it only the poor and special or regimes we don't approve of type cases?

You just keep banging the drum of morality, with no historical point of cut off and no focus on whom should be paid by whom? But apparently that's not arbitrary.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're scrabbling in the dirt looking for excuses. The billions of GBP extracted from generations of torturous labour, along with billions more that compensated slavers, went a long way to developing Britain's infrastructure, institutions and corporations. Tough shit if Britain has to pay its bills for the central role it played in one of the worst crimes against humanity in world history.

Why is the idea of reparations so painful for you? What's wrong?

Who is footing the bill?
Who is receiving the money?

The idea isn't painful to me, it's patently ridiculous.

Tony EH

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

There's no such thing as 'free money'. Consider it 'settling a bill' if it makes it easier for you to cope with.

Who is "settling" this "bill" though?

There simply won't be enough money to go around if it just comes from the "descendants" of "slave owners/dealers".

Tony EH

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Why is the idea of reparations so painful for you? What's wrong?

Demanding that the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty is what's wrong.

Wibbs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're scrabbling in the dirt looking for excuses.

Actually it's a valid point and one you can't actually rebuff, but instead go running with the emotionals around morals you've barely defined.

Debts are written off. In law am I responsible for any debts of my great grandfather? Of course not, because I'm not responsible for taking them out and defaulting on them in the first place. Even if I have someone had advantage from them, I am not responsible for that initial debt. I wasn't alive, it wasn't me. Most civilised cultures and philosophies got rid of the sins of the father are visited upon the sons as the Bronze Age religious nonsense it was.

Further, am I responsible for any debts you might incur? If you default on a loan does the bank come to me, to your family(unless they cosigned), your neighbours, your ethnicity? Of course not. Clearly again that would be a nonsense, because again it's not my debt.

So the British of today pay reparations to descendants of slaves? Why not extend that to the Irish. We were a part of their country and individuals across Europe profited from the trade. Would that only apply to White Irish(or British, or Dutch etc) and leave non native wallets alone?

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

Because where does it end? Simple question.

I guess that's up to those making the claim and those paying it.

I have at least agreed that reparations can be in play and have given a cut off point, one you don't agree with but a point nonetheless.

It's a ridiculous cut-off point that can be easily frustrated by foot-dragging. Ask the Bloody Sunday relatives in the north.

Can you answer this please?

I guess when you can trace persistent deprivation and continuing privilege from that time. Forgive me, I'm no more an expert on this that you so obviously aren't with your 'sorry, you're dead now'. When Britain left the Caribbean there was illiteracy rates of over 60%, the effects persist. I guess the reparations could be used to build up public services.

Should the Irish people pay reparations to Anglo Irish families who lost their holdings during the revolution?

Not a fucking chance, they were parasitic on the Irish people.

Or is it only the poor and special or regimes we don't approve of type cases?

I couldn't care less which regime it is, Irish, African, Chinese, whatever.

nullzero

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually it's a valid point and one you can't actually rebuff, but instead go running with the emotionals around morals you've barely defined.

Debts are written off. In law am I responsible for any debts of my great grandfather? Of course not, because I'm not responsible for taking them out and defaulting on them in the first place. Even if I have someone had advantage from them, I am not responsible for that initial debt. I wasn't alive, it wasn't me. Most civilised cultures and philosophies got rid of the sins of the father are visited upon the sons as the Bronze Age religious nonsense it was.

Further, am I responsible for any debts you might incur? If you default on a loan does the bank come to me, to your family(unless they cosigned), your neighbours, your ethnicity? Of course not. Clearly again that would be a nonsense, because again it's not my debt.

So the British of today pay reparations to descendants of slaves? Why not extend that to the Irish. We were a part of their country and individuals across Europe profited from the trade. Would that only apply to White Irish(or British, or Dutch etc) and leave non native wallets alone?

We'll all just self flagellate until everyone's feelings aren't hurt any more.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I guess that's up to those making the claim and those paying it.



It's a ridiculous cut-off point that can be easily frustrated by foot-dragging. Ask the Bloody Sunday relatives in the north.



I guess when you can trace persistent deprivation and continuing privilege from that time. Forgive me, I'm no more an expert on this that you so obviously aren't with your 'sorry, you're dead now'. When Britain left the Caribbean there was illiteracy rates of over 60%, the effects persist. I guess the reparations could be used to build up public services.



Not a fucking chance, they were parasitic on the Irish people.



I couldn't care less which regime it is, Irish, African, Chinese, whatever.

You literally have no valid arguments to back up your reparation ideology.

hawley

Wibbs wrote: »

Because where does it end? Simple question. I have at least agreed that reparations can be in play and have given a cut off point, one you don't agree with but a point nonetheless.

Can you answer this please?




Actually on the last example, should those who were wealthy and had their stuff taken by various regimes be compensated many generations on? I mean you mentioned Jewish families who lost stuff because of Hitler and his minions? Should the Irish people pay reparations to Anglo Irish families who lost their holdings during the revolution? Or is it only the poor and special or regimes we don't approve of type cases?

You just keep banging the drum of morality, with no historical point of cut off and no focus on whom should be paid by whom? But apparently that's not arbitrary.

I think there was a tax on any land that the Anglo Irish gave up until some time in the 1980's. Am not sure on the details of it.

Junkyard Tom

Wibbs wrote: »

Debts are written off. In law am I responsible for any debts of my great grandfather?

You're an individual. States are not individuals. Nations of people are not individuals.

So the British of today pay reparations to descendants of slaves? Why not extend that to the Irish. We were a part of their country and individuals across Europe profited from the trade. Would that only apply to White Irish(or British, or Dutch etc) and leave non native wallets alone?

Again you're retreating to the 'no-definite-line-ergo-no-justification', vagueness alone does not imply invalidity.

You're throwing a spaghetti of bad faith arguments/distractions/fallacies on the table and saying 'what about this' because the idea of reparations gets your goat.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

You literally have no valid arguments to back up your reparation ideology.

Reparations are not an ideology. You're completely out of your depth.

hawley

This is article on the rates that farmers had to pay the British for the use of the land post independence.
https://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/when-dev-defaulted-the-land-annuities-dispute-1926-38/

jackboy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I guess when you can trace persistent deprivation and continuing privilege from that time. Forgive me, I'm no more an expert on this that you so obviously aren't with your 'sorry, you're dead now'. When Britain left the Caribbean there was illiteracy rates of over 60%, the effects persist. I guess the reparations could be used to build up public services.

It’s not that simple. Lots of black people in the US now are wealthy and privileged because their ancestors were brought there as slaves. In general, a larger proportion of the slaves descendants would be worse off if they were left in Africa.

The bills and payments for reparations cannot possibly be totted up fairly at this stage.

Irish Praetorian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're an individual. States are not individuals. Nations of people are not individuals.

And so we're supposed to operate schemes of collective reparation on the basis of imagined communities which contemporaries may not have held whilst their progeny may? Put another way, at the time of slavery being ended in the British West Indies, Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom. Should we be considered similarly liable for the actions of the UK? Or should the descendants of Irish landowners who took part in the slave trade be exempted simply for now living in Ireland?

Tony EH

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're an individual. States are not individuals. Nations of people are not individuals.

The State is made up of every individual that resides within it. It isn't some nebulous, independent, private, organisation.

If you're expecting the state to foot the bill, what you're asking for is that every individual that makes up the state pay for something they didn't do.

Junkyard Tom

jackboy wrote: »

Lots of black people in the US now are wealthy and privileged because their ancestors were brought there as slaves. In general, a larger proportion of the slaves descendants would be worse off if they were left in Africa.

Ah here we go. The 'ungrateful savage' trope. Their ancestors' labour created vast wealth for degenerate torturers but they should consider themselves lucky.

I should know better than to get involved in these discussions as they attract the 'characters' of boards.ie.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Reparations are not an ideology. You're completely out of your depth.

I never said they were, I said "your reparation ideology", in reference to how you are supporting the idea of reparations.

You literally have no cohesive arguments to make here at all, in yet you have the brass neck to accuse others of not debating properly. And you say I'm out of my depth? What sort of delusions of grandeur does one require to make a statement like that? Such unbridled narcissism.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ah here we go. The 'ungrateful savage' trope. Their ancestors' labour created vast wealth for degenerate torturers but they should consider themselves lucky.

I should know better than to get involved in these discussions as they attract the 'characters' of boards.ie.

You're putting words in that's posters mouth.
The fact of the matter is quality of life in America is better than virtually every country in Africa. Ideally their ancestors should have never been sold into slavery but they sadly were, now their descendants have a superior quality of life to people in the place where their ancestors came from. It's just the way things are, even though people were wrongly sold into slavery to begin the process.

Irish Praetorian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ah here we go. The 'ungrateful savage' trope. Their ancestors' labour created vast wealth for degenerate torturers but they should consider themselves lucky.

I should know better than to get involved in these discussions as they attract the 'characters' of boards.ie.

Have you considered the irony in arguing others are propagating an 'ungrateful savage' trope, when you've spent the past few pages arguing that people are so utterly debilitated by the events of 120-200 years ago, that they must have their burden lifted by a swath of people you've considered collectively guilty?

nullzero

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Have you considered the irony in arguing others are propagating an 'ungrateful savage' trope, when you've spent the past few pages arguing that people are so utterly debilitated by the events of 120-200 years ago, that they must have their burden lifted by a swath of people you've considered collectively guilty?

Nail on the head.

Junkyard Tom

nullzero wrote: »

Nail on the head.

Your cheer-leading is embarrassing, is thanks button not good enough for you? Have some dignity.

Junkyard Tom

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

you've spent the past few pages arguing that people are so utterly debilitated by the events of 120-200 years ago, that they must have their burden lifted by a swath of people you've considered collectively guilty?

Your reading comprehension isn't great. The principle argument I've made to support reparations is a moral one. Similarly, the property of Jews that was stolen during WWII should be returned regardless of the survivors/descendants current financial positions.

I'll leave ye get back to your anti-BLM circle-jerk lads.

Irish Praetorian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Your reading comprehension isn't great. The principle argument I've made to support reparations is a moral one. Similarly, the property of Jews that was stolen during WWII should be returned regardless of the survivors/descendants current financial positions.

I'll leave ye get back to your anti-BLM circle-jerk lads.

Yes you have indeed made that moral argument, repeatedly in fact, the problem is when challenged on the implications of that argument, even from a moral standpoint, you've had nothing to say apart from emotive appeals and shameful insults like the one made in the preceding post.

A simple example, since you raise the issue of Jewish compensation post WW2; you will observe that the bulk of the restitution made by Germany to Israel and Holocaust survivors was either set out or completed in the 1950s and at present, consists primarily of pensions for less than ten thousand survivors. How do you imagine it would be received if the UK argued it should be compensated for the loss of productivity and livelihoods generated from the flight of landlords during the Irish Land War? Would you seriously countenance accepting even a generalized financial responsibility to pay an annuity or pension to the descendant of a racket renter or an absentee landlord? Morally, would you consider that anything but repugnant?

jackboy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ah here we go. The 'ungrateful savage' trope. Their ancestors' labour created vast wealth for degenerate torturers but they should consider themselves lucky.

I should know better than to get involved in these discussions as they attract the 'characters' of boards.ie.

I never said they should consider themselves lucky. I was just saying how hard it is to fairly tot up bills and payments for historical events. It’s actually more than hard, it is practically impossible.

Maybe the brits should pay reparations, they can fund this by seeking reparations from Germany for WW2.

Donald Trump

I have a black US friend who was adamant that she should be paid reparations. (I lived in the US for a time)

She has a job paying a 6-figure salary.

I always found the concept interesting and so I asked her who should pay it and she said "white people".

So of course, I asked her who did that mean. And she basically said anyone that she considered to be white. so the I tried to get a definition of where that boundary lay - did it include recent poor immigrants from the likes of Albania? Post WWII Polish immigrants to the US who fled after their country had been decimated by the Germans? Recent Syrians who were fleeing destruction of their lives. The answer to the above was all "yes" they were white people with "white privilege" and therefore they owed her reparations. It didn't matter how much was in their bank balance - they still had "white privilege" because they looked white.

Oh, btw, her parents were also relatively well educated when they immigrated to the US. The girl was born there but (I think) her older sister wasn't. Her parents split up after that and I gather she had a poor enough upbringing, but as I said, she'd be earning in excess of 6-figure dollars per year in a tech-related field. That said, they immigrated from Trinidad so they could have been descended from slaves. But we probably all are if we go back far enough!

Junkyard Tom

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

How do you imagine it would be received if the UK argued it should be compensated for the loss of productivity and livelihoods generated from the flight of landlords during the Irish Land War?

It would be political suicide for any Irish TD that even considered it. Why? Because you don't compensate colonisers who benefited from the misery of the native population. These ridiculous attempts at equivalence are crackers.

Let's say the rebellion of 1798 was successful and we put the former Protestants/Unionists to work in the fields for 100 years as slaves. Do I think their descendants would have a justified call for reparations? Absolutely I would.

Honestly, this is pointless. There are lots of very good articles out there that make the case for reparations for various groups of people that have been wronged. A quick google will uncover them.

I'm done here. Enjoy.

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Your cheer-leading is embarrassing, is thanks button not good enough for you? Have some dignity.

Did I hurt your feelings?

nullzero

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Your reading comprehension isn't great. The principle argument I've made to support reparations is a moral one. Similarly, the property of Jews that was stolen during WWII should be returned regardless of the survivors/descendants current financial positions.

I'll leave ye get back to your anti-BLM circle-jerk lads.

Jesus, what is it with this calling a posters ability to read into question?

If somebody doesn't believe reparations are a good idea or that pulling down a statue doesn't actually achieve anything worthwhile it doesn't make them fit into some "they must be a racist" slot that you have in your mind for anyone who disagrees with you.

Irish Praetorian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It would be political suicide for any Irish TD that even considered it. Why? Because you don't compensate colonisers who benefited from the misery of the native population. These ridiculous attempts at equivalence are crackers.

Let's say the rebellion of 1798 was successful and we put the former Protestants/Unionists to work in the fields for 100 years as slaves. Do I think their descendants would have a justified call for reparations? Absolutely I would.

Honestly, this is pointless. There are lots of very good articles out there that make the case for reparations for various groups of people that have been wronged. A quick google will uncover them.

I'm done here. Enjoy.

Again, I think you might be running the risk of viewing history through modern eyes without appreciating contemporary views. For one thing, in the 19th century an Irishman would have regarded himself as far less distinct from an Englishman or a Welshman as he would today. The idea that an Irishman at the time would have adopted a strictly colonial view of Ireland's position within the UK was largely the preserve of a radical view, who gained strength as the decades wore on.

Beyond that, I would remind you the 1798 Rebellion was largely headed up by members of the Anglo-Irish elite, who naturally would have had little inclination to enslave their peers, but that is more of an aside. Now in your theoretical scenario I certainly would argue compensation would be due in the aftermath of such a practice. But if you would ask the same question 100 years down the line, with the passage of time, people and properties, then no I could not not support such a post-facto measure.

I would leave you only with a quote from Larry Elder who described reparations aptly as; "the extraction of money from those who were never slave owners, to those who were never slaves."