What does the UK, France and the Netherlands have in common?

[Pannonian]

What? The others have to pay as well, possibly even more. They're just not making fun of it here like the Brits do and avoid the silly arguments.

Quite possibly because, on this subject, Britain has done a fair bit to end slavery. If you're so concerned about social justice and making sure the injusticed get payment, why don't you petition your own German government to set aside a substantial fund to pay them?

[Husar]

Quite possibly because, on this subject, Britain has done a fair bit to end slavery. If you're so concerned about social justice and making sure the injusticed get payment, why don't you petition your own German government to set aside a substantial fund to pay them?

Let's just pretend you're not trying to distract from your own issues again, then the answer is simple:

Germany had no official colonial ambitions until 1884, Bismarkc was always against it and only corporate interest and some sill nationalists wanted colonies to exploit at the time. In WW1 you took our colonies and made them your colonies and then we paid you for all the trouble involved for several decades.

So how much has Britain paid in reparations again?

[Sarmatian]

I hear your point.

I was commenting on the apples/oranges factor of applying current moral and ethical standards to actions taken by people decades or centuries in the past when then-accumulated human wisdom established entirely different standards for evaluation. Would we evaluate the effectiveness of a Roman Legion by its comparative capability against the 82nd Airborne division? By that metric, the Roman military was a sad joke -- your typical legion would be trashed by a platoon of paratroopers if the paras could get a double-ration of ammo.

Then why is Germany still paying for WW1 and WW2? Invasions were pretty common back then, and there wasn't a single major nation in that time period, most notably USA, UK, Japan, Italy, USSR... (in no particular order), that didn't make quite a few wars of conquests, or even mistreatment of it's own or foreign citizens.



...And this post highlights the problem with British nationalism perfectly. The "It's Britain and ONLY Britain"-attitude. No it's not, there's not a single nation on earth who doesn't get criticized when they act like dicks.

Quite a few of them end up being invaded as well, while all the Brits has to put up with is some finger-pointing. Leave your victimization at the door, please.

Exactly. It seems that the issue of ALL countries involved in slave trade paying reparations translates "WHY ONLY BRITAIN PAY?" to the average Brit.


Quite possibly because, on this subject, Britain has done a fair bit to end slavery. If you're so concerned about social justice and making sure the injusticed get payment, why don't you petition your own German government to set aside a substantial fund to pay them?

Because the British empire covered quarter of the globe while the German empire consisted of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I thought that was common knowledge.

[Pannonian]

Let's just pretend you're not trying to distract from your own issues again, then the answer is simple:

Germany had no official colonial ambitions until 1884, Bismarkc was always against it and only corporate interest and some sill nationalists wanted colonies to exploit at the time. In WW1 you took our colonies and made them your colonies and then we paid you for all the trouble involved for several decades.

So how much has Britain paid in reparations again?

On the reparations, did Louis not make it clear (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126448-Treaty-of-Versailles-Modern-Reappraisal&highlight=versailles) that it was for repairing damage inflicted on various communities, that everyone paid and the Allied countries paid the majority of it, and that Germany borrowed more money from the US for the purpose than she actually paid in reparations, eventually defaulting rather than pay it back?

And as for not paying the cost of upholding your idea of social justice because you weren't involved, that's wonderful. Back in the 19th century when we had an anti-slavery campaign and the muscle to push it, we didn't just deal with the consequences of our use of slaves. We also pushed our ideals on others around the world, rooting out slavery wherever we could, using multilateral resources where it was made available, or just using our own if it wasn't. We didn't say, that's not our problem. We said, slavery is bad, and it's bad universally, whether we're involved or not, and we'll do whatever we can to end it. Since the British don't seem to care as much about the issue nowadays as you do, why don't you take up the mantle of anti-slavery activism, and use your resources to push it like we did in the C19? Or is it easier to point fingers and use strong words than to actually pay to uphold the ideals you're talking about?

[Husar]

On the reparations, did Louis not make it clear (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?126448-Treaty-of-Versailles-Modern-Reappraisal&highlight=versailles) that it was for repairing damage inflicted on various communities, that everyone paid and the Allied countries paid the majority of it, and that Germany borrowed more money from the US for the purpose than she actually paid in reparations, eventually defaulting rather than pay it back?

No, I shattered all of his points back then, I remember it vividly.


And as for not paying the cost of upholding your idea of social justice because you weren't involved, that's wonderful. Back in the 19th century when we had an anti-slavery campaign and the muscle to push it, we didn't just deal with the consequences of our use of slaves. We also pushed our ideals on others around the world, rooting out slavery wherever we could, using multilateral resources where it was made available, or just using our own if it wasn't. We didn't say, that's not our problem. We said, slavery is bad, and it's bad universally, whether we're involved or not, and we'll do whatever we can to end it. Since the British don't seem to care as much about the issue nowadays as you do, why don't you take up the mantle of anti-slavery activism, and use your resources to push it like we did in the C19? Or is it easier to point fingers and use strong words than to actually pay to uphold the ideals you're talking about?

I lready said for ending an ongoing crime, you get no bonus points. And I already paid two million a year for the past five years, what have you done other than point fingers at your "glorious" ancestors?

[Husar]

And as for not paying the cost of upholding your idea of social justice because you weren't involved, that's wonderful. Back in the 19th century when we had an anti-slavery campaign and the muscle to push it, we didn't just deal with the consequences of our use of slaves. We also pushed our ideals on others around the world, rooting out slavery wherever we could, using multilateral resources where it was made available, or just using our own if it wasn't. We didn't say, that's not our problem. We said, slavery is bad, and it's bad universally, whether we're involved or not, and we'll do whatever we can to end it. Since the British don't seem to care as much about the issue nowadays as you do, why don't you take up the mantle of anti-slavery activism, and use your resources to push it like we did in the C19? Or is it easier to point fingers and use strong words than to actually pay to uphold the ideals you're talking about?

Oh, almost forgot this.
You mean judging by the standards of the time you used your Navy to bully everyone and destroy other nations' lucrative trade routes? If slavery wasn't bad because everyone was doing it and you were the only one using force to stop it, then going by the standard set by everyone, you were a nasty bully ruining everyone's trade routes. After all we're not allowed to apply today's standard to those times.

[Pannonian]

Oh, almost forgot this.
You mean judging by the standards of the time you used your Navy to bully everyone and destroy other nations' lucrative trade routes? If slavery wasn't bad because everyone was doing it and you were the only one using force to stop it, then going by the standard set by everyone, you were a nasty bully ruining everyone's trade routes. After all we're not allowed to apply today's standard to those times.

This is hilarious, and is what I meant when I said that people start with the conclusion that Britain is wrong and needs a kicking, and set up the rules to come to that conclusion. Since whatever we do, we're going to be judged in the wrong, I'd rather we didn't do anything. We're still going to be wrong, but it's cheaper.

[Husar]

This is hilarious, and is what I meant when I said that people start with the conclusion that Britain is wrong and needs a kicking, and set up the rules to come to that conclusion. Since whatever we do, we're going to be judged in the wrong, I'd rather we didn't do anything. We're still going to be wrong, but it's cheaper.

Well, whatever the truth is, you keep arguing about how some arbitrary monetary net benefits make up for 29 million starved Indians and millions of slaves. You simply cannot accept any scenario where Britain made a mistake because it was either just standard or a revolutionary good deed depending on how it suits Britain's glory best.

I never said the abolition of slavery was a bad thing, just what you and everyone else did before was. To that I am told that since everyone did it, it was alright and I can't use modern standards. But the moment Britain decided to abolish slavery, I apparently do have to use modern standards and call it a great thing even though noone else abolished it. Why?

[Pannonian]

Well, whatever the truth is, you keep arguing about how some arbitrary monetary net benefits make up for 29 million starved Indians and millions of slaves. You simply cannot accept any scenario where Britain made a mistake because it was either just standard or a revolutionary good deed depending on how it suits Britain's glory best.

I never said the abolition of slavery was a bad thing, just what you and everyone else did before was. To that I am told that since everyone did it, it was alright and I can't use modern standards. But the moment Britain decided to abolish slavery, I apparently do have to use modern standards and call it a great thing even though noone else abolished it. Why?

Because Britain is wrong and needs to recompense obviously. It just needs discussion as to what Britain is wrong about and just what we're being asked to pay for. There should be a foundation of some kind that Britain has to pay into on a yearly basis, maybe called the British Guilt Foundation. We have to pay no matter what, but each year a randomly selected panel of moralists get to finger us for something that we've done wrong, and draw from the foundation to pay for our past sins. What those sins are are also decided by the panel, and past verdicts have no bearing on what that year's verdicts will be. They'll also have the power to demand more if they think the yearly payment isn't enough.

[CBR]

So how much has Britain paid in reparations again? How much has Germany paid in reparations for the genocide in Namibia? Or is foreign aid and returning of skulls enough?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, whatever the truth is, you keep arguing about how some arbitrary monetary net benefits make up for 29 million starved Indians and millions of slaves. You simply cannot accept any scenario where Britain made a mistake because it was either just standard or a revolutionary good deed depending on how it suits Britain's glory best.

I never said the abolition of slavery was a bad thing, just what you and everyone else did before was. To that I am told that since everyone did it, it was alright and I can't use modern standards. But the moment Britain decided to abolish slavery, I apparently do have to use modern standards and call it a great thing even though noone else abolished it. Why?

The Slave Trade was a BAD THING, the establishment of the Atlantic Squadron to suppress the slave Trade and the banning of the Trade throughout the Colonies was a GOOD THING. May people forget that slavery was a private business, while it was never legal in England, it was allowed in the Colonies. The British Government took the view 200 years ago that said trade was immoral, they not only banned it but put diplomatic pressure and military might towards ending the Slave Trade full stop.

Britain is responsible for the abolition of the Slave Trade - this is also a GOOD THING.

It took a further 24 years for the British Government to forcibly abolish it in the Colonies, who were self-governing in this matter - the act of 1833 forced the Colonies to emancipate the slaves. If you're looking for a reason for the time lapse between the abolition of the Trade and of Slavery itself, I direct you to the stink the American Colonists threw up when forced to accept direct British intervention in their internal economics.

The point is - if the British Government pays today, it does so by taxing the British people. The British people are NOT culpable for the Slave Trade - it is immoral to ask them to pay, even more immoral than the War Reparations forced on Germany, because at least the Germans who accepted that settlement actually fought in that war.

[Husar]

How much has Germany paid in reparations for the genocide in Namibia? Or is foreign aid and returning of skulls enough?

Not enough, apparently they're making baby steps and coming up with excuses. At least they agreed to make a memorial, call it a genocide and apologized to the people. What have the British done so far other than laugh at their former victims and tell them they got a few roads as net benefit?


The Slave Trade was a BAD THING, the establishment of the Atlantic Squadron to suppress the slave Trade and the banning of the Trade throughout the Colonies was a GOOD THING. May people forget that slavery was a private business, while it was never legal in England, it was allowed in the Colonies. The British Government took the view 200 years ago that said trade was immoral, they not only banned it but put diplomatic pressure and military might towards ending the Slave Trade full stop.

Britain is responsible for the abolition of the Slave Trade - this is also a GOOD THING.

Agreed, using today's morals, I never argued that. Only question is whether you deserve a cookie for stopping a crime.


It took a further 24 years for the British Government to forcibly abolish it in the Colonies, who were self-governing in this matter - the act of 1833 forced the Colonies to emancipate the slaves. If you're looking for a reason for the time lapse between the abolition of the Trade and of Slavery itself, I direct you to the stink the American Colonists threw up when forced to accept direct British intervention in their internal economics.

Yes, because the noble thing to do was forced upon the masses by a few people. And not all the masses really liked it I guess, reminds me of the EU.


The point is - if the British Government pays today, it does so by taxing the British people. The British people are NOT culpable for the Slave Trade - it is immoral to ask them to pay, even more immoral than the War Reparations forced on Germany, because at least the Germans who accepted that settlement actually fought in that war.

So it's okay to take my taxes for reparations but not yours because your ancestors were too proud to accept reparations? I guess next time we lose a war we'll just refuse to pay anything.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Apologies for not giving a point-by-point reply, since I'm short on time, but let me say this...

The very act of giving sanction to private enterprises like the East Indian Company to operate is enough to hold the British state accountable to some degree for their actions. And even when the slave trade was banned through Wilberforce etc, slavery continued to be supported. The British state cannot shift responsibility for slavery in the colonies, since it clearly had the legal jurisdiction over them to enforce slavery policies, as can be seen from the fact that an Act of Parliament eventually abolished slavery throughout the Empire (save a couple of territories) in 1833.

And as for the wealth controversy, it may be that Britain had to rebuild its financial reserves from scratch after WWII, but even then slavery fuelled the very infrastructure that the ability to do that relied upon. Glasgow, Liverpool etc - a lot of the architecture in these Atlantic port cities was built by leading families in the slave trade. Naturally not every British citizens benefited, with markets and competition being what they are. But at the national level there is no question that Britain has historically benefited from slavery and the slave trade.

And as for those who suggest that by my logic FYR Macedonia should pay reparations for Alexander the Great - well, that line of thought is so obviously flawed I will only go into it if they ask me to.

[Montmorency]

Alright - now address the issues of repose and limitation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apologies for not giving a point-by-point reply, since I'm short on time, but let me say this...

The very act of giving sanction to private enterprises like the East Indian Company to operate is enough to hold the British state accountable to some degree for their actions. And even when the slave trade was banned through Wilberforce etc, slavery continued to be supported. The British state cannot shift responsibility for slavery in the colonies, since it clearly had the legal jurisdiction over them to enforce slavery policies, as can be seen from the fact that an Act of Parliament eventually abolished slavery throughout the Empire (save a couple of territories) in 1833.

And as for the wealth controversy, it may be that Britain had to rebuild its financial reserves from scratch after WWII, but even then slavery fuelled the very infrastructure that the ability to do that relied upon. Glasgow, Liverpool etc - a lot of the architecture in these Atlantic port cities was built by leading families in the slave trade. Naturally not every British citizens benefited, with markets and competition being what they are. But at the national level there is no question that Britain has historically benefited from slavery and the slave trade.

And as for those who suggest that by my logic FYR Macedonia should pay reparations for Alexander the Great - well, that line of thought is so obviously flawed I will only go into it if they ask me to.

Emancipation was achieved, in fact, by the state forcibly buying the slaves and then freeing them. In the West Indies seek reparations, they should seek them from the people who received those payments, not the government. Reparations from the government means taxing the Citizens of the UK, which means everyone who earns more than £9,000 a years - so anyone who works full-time in a supermarket.

The core argument is that we are, allegedly, responsibly for the current economic status of these peoples - despite 100 years of post-slavery rule during which infrastructure was built and former slaves educated, and despite the face that Britain already has one of the largest funds for oversees development.

[Montmorency]

The core argument is that we are, allegedly, responsibly for the current economic status of these peoples - despite 100 years of post-slavery rule during which infrastructure was built and former slaves educated

Why are the parts of India that were not directly administered by the British | today so much more prosperous than those that were? :wiseguy:

[Husar]

Emancipation was achieved, in fact, by the state forcibly buying the slaves and then freeing them. In the West Indies seek reparations, they should seek them from the people who received those payments, not the government. Reparations from the government means taxing the Citizens of the UK, which means everyone who earns more than £9,000 a years - so anyone who works full-time in a supermarket.

So you want a tax only for rich people? Fine with me and I think even HoreTore would love it.


The core argument is that we are, allegedly, responsibly for the current economic status of these peoples - despite 100 years of post-slavery rule during which infrastructure was built and former slaves educated, and despite the face that Britain already has one of the largest funds for oversees development.

The horrible spelling mistakes aside, no you are not responsible for the current state. We said you are responsible for enslaving people in the first place and using their labor to try and enrich yourselves while the slaves had miserable lives. As for the foreign aid, if you hadn't been late to this thread (this time it's your personal fault unless you have an excuse from your doctor), you might have seen that I said the foreign aid is a good point, it can of course be deducted from the payments.

There was even a point where I said the payments should be hugs and kisses because you heartless capitalists and the greedy people over there only think of cold, hard money to repair damages that were done to peoples' hearts, souls and bodies. But such sentiments are always swept under a rug by a wave of capitalist sentiments and self-victimization of the perpetrators...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you want a tax only for rich people? Fine with me and I think even @HoreTore (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=10538) would love it.

No - I want these countries to go after the the people whose ancestors were paid to release the slaves. I'm not a fan of taxes or ANY involvement with the British State.


The horrible spelling mistakes aside, no you are not responsible for the current state. We said you are responsible for enslaving people in the first place and using their labor to try and enrich yourselves while the slaves had miserable lives. As for the foreign aid, if you hadn't been late to this thread (this time it's your personal fault unless you have an excuse from your doctor), you might have seen that I said the foreign aid is a good point, it can of course be deducted from the payments.

How am I responsible for that?

I was not alive, nor have I ever condoned it. I am being victimised for nothing but the country I was born into - that is immoral, even more so in this case.

If we are being forced to make monetary reparations for the current state of these countries, we should obviously cancel internal aid - because it has meant nothing to them all these decades.


There was even a point where I said the payments should be hugs and kisses because you heartless capitalists and the greedy people over there only think of cold, hard money to repair damages that were done to peoples' hearts, souls and bodies. But such sentiments are always swept under a rug by a wave of capitalist sentiments and self-victimization of the perpetrators...

The perpetrators are dead - most of their descendants probably aren't even aware of the slaving connection.

My great-great-grandfather beat his wife. I am his acknowledged descendant - he was so vile his father disinherited him. Should I be sent to prison? Or perhaps I should pay my wealthy cousins reparations?

[Pannonian]

Emancipation was achieved, in fact, by the state forcibly buying the slaves and then freeing them. In the West Indies seek reparations, they should seek them from the people who received those payments, not the government. Reparations from the government means taxing the Citizens of the UK, which means everyone who earns more than £9,000 a years - so anyone who works full-time in a supermarket.

The core argument is that we are, allegedly, responsibly for the current economic status of these peoples - despite 100 years of post-slavery rule during which infrastructure was built and former slaves educated, and despite the face that Britain already has one of the largest funds for oversees development.

As Husar says, we shouldn't point to what our "glorious ancestors" did in ending slavery, developing the infrastructure of overseas territories, etc. We don't get a cookie for all that. But we should point to what our "inglorious ancestors" did in using slavery. We do get a deserved kicking for that. If we point to the fact that slavery was the norm back then, that has nothing to do with our own doings and how we're going to get a kicking for it. The rules will be revised in such a way that Britain, and by that I mean modern Britain and British citizens today, will get the lion's share of the kicking, while other major slaving states from back then will be excused one way or another. By our very nature, as Seamus has alluded to and as Husar has explicitly stated, we are wrong and we deserve to be punished like we've never been punished.

Moralist: What have the British done so far other than laugh at their former victims and tell them they got a few roads as net benefit?
Brit: Erm, we ended slavery around the world?
Moralist: You don't get a cookie for that, and besides you deserve punishment for imposing yourself on the trade of other nations.

Thus we get our deserved double kicking. Once for not doing enough to end slavery, once for doing too much to end slavery. And a century of anti-slavery campaigning around the world is dismissed as "we don't get a cookie for it".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As Husar says, we shouldn't point to what our "glorious ancestors" did in ending slavery, developing the infrastructure of overseas territories, etc. We don't get a cookie for all that. But we should point to what our "inglorious ancestors" did in using slavery. We do get a deserved kicking for that. If we point to the fact that slavery was the norm back then, that has nothing to do with our own doings and how we're going to get a kicking for it. The rules will be revised in such a way that Britain, and by that I mean modern Britain and British citizens today, will get the lion's share of the kicking, while other major slaving states from back then will be excused one way or another. By our very nature, as Seamus has alluded to and as Husar has explicitly stated, we are wrong and we deserve to be punished like we've never been punished.

Moralist: What have the British done so far other than laugh at their former victims and tell them they got a few roads as net benefit?
Brit: Erm, we ended slavery around the world?
Moralist: You don't get a cookie for that, and besides you deserve punishment for imposing yourself on the trade of other nations.

Thus we get our deserved double kicking. Once for not doing enough to end slavery, once for doing too much to end slavery. And a century of anti-slavery campaigning around the world is dismissed as "we don't get a cookie for it".

Be careful pan-man, or you might begin expressing some form of national pride....maybe even.....[gasp!]....nationalism.

[Pannonian]

Be careful pan-man, or you might begin expressing some form of national pride....maybe even.....[gasp!]....nationalism.

I wouldn't go ra-ra about whatever good things we might have done in the past as long as others don't drag up the bad things and point to them exclusively, especially on this particular subject where 19th century Britain had made it a point of pride to end that practice. Rather than the nationalist pride about empire that we've been accused of, modern Brits generally think of empire as something in the distant history that has little to do with our present day situation which we'd rather deal with. But if people are going to drag up our past, we can also point to the context of worldwide imperialism by everyone who could, and that we were by no means the worst of the bunch.

In any case, as you identified, and as Husar confirmed in saying that we've never been invaded, all of this is rooted in the desire to see us get the kicking that we deserve and that we've never received in our continental wars, but which we've dealt out to the French and Germans.

I saw this conversation quoted somewhere, about the readiness of Nigeria for independence.

Prime Minister: Are Nigeria ready for independence?
Colonial Minister: No, it'll take another twenty to thirty years.
PM: What do you recommend we do?
CM: Give them independence now. If we don't, the Nigerian intellectuals will turn against us and become rebels, and we'll be delaying what will happen anyway.

Since the moralists are determined to give us a kicking anyway, I'd rather we did nothing and let them accuse us of all sorts. We're going to be found guilty anyway, and it'll be cheaper to do nothing.

[drone]

What I get from this thread: the Portuguese and Spanish did it right. Import the most, but make sure the fatality rates are as close to 100% as possible.

[Husar]

No - I want these countries to go after the the people whose ancestors were paid to release the slaves. I'm not a fan of taxes or ANY involvement with the British State.

Th British State was involved in all of it though as Rhyf mentioned


How am I responsible for that?

I was not alive, nor have I ever condoned it. I am being victimised for nothing but the country I was born into - that is immoral, even more so in this case.

If we are being forced to make monetary reparations for the current state of these countries, we should obviously cancel internal aid - because it has meant nothing to them all these decades.

Why did I have to py for V2s shot at London? I never even saw one of them. And neither did my generation sign any contracts that said we nee to pay.


The perpetrators are dead - most of their descendants probably aren't even aware of the slaving connection.

My great-great-grandfather beat his wife. I am his acknowledged descendant - he was so vile his father disinherited him. Should I be sent to prison? Or perhaps I should pay my wealthy cousins reparations?
Weren't you and your granddad already indirectly and directly punished by the disinheritance? Also don't forget that this is completely different because while corporations are people, nations are not.


As Husar says, we shouldn't point to what our "glorious ancestors" did in ending slavery, developing the infrastructure of overseas territories, etc. We don't get a cookie for all that. But we should point to what our "inglorious ancestors" did in using slavery. We do get a deserved kicking for that. If we point to the fact that slavery was the norm back then, that has nothing to do with our own doings and how we're going to get a kicking for it. The rules will be revised in such a way that Britain, and by that I mean modern Britain and British citizens today, will get the lion's share of the kicking, while other major slaving states from back then will be excused one way or another. By our very nature, as Seamus has alluded to and as Husar has explicitly stated, we are wrong and we deserve to be punished like we've never been punished.

Moralist: What have the British done so far other than laugh at their former victims and tell them they got a few roads as net benefit?
Brit: Erm, we ended slavery around the world?
Moralist: You don't get a cookie for that, and besides you deserve punishment for imposing yourself on the trade of other nations.

Thus we get our deserved double kicking. Once for not doing enough to end slavery, once for doing too much to end slavery. And a century of anti-slavery campaigning around the world is dismissed as "we don't get a cookie for it".

This was great comedy, but had nothing to do with what I actually said as I have explained numerous times now.

[Pannonian]

What I get from this thread: the Portuguese and Spanish did it right. Import the most, but make sure the fatality rates are as close to 100% as possible.

The Spanish and Portuguese have had their share of fighting on their land, so they don't attract the resentment that the British do. We have the nearly unique sins of being successful, being stable and being uninvaded. The only other country with this combination of deadly sins is the US, and they attract the same kind of resentment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Spanish and Portuguese have had their share of fighting on their land, so they don't attract the resentment that the British do. We have the nearly unique sins of being successful, being stable and being uninvaded. The only other country with this combination of deadly sins is the US, and they attract the same kind of resentment.

Yeah, plus we catch a little extra excrement for still being actively churched.

[Greyblades]

We have the nearly unique sins of being successful, being stable and being uninvaded.

Hmm... Kinda sorta, Britain 1701 onwards was stable but the preceding states were quite prone to civil wars and failed invasions, usually against each other, with the odd joint Scottish+French armies running around the isles and the dutch invasion, though that one gets iffy, due to some of the country joining the invaders and the invaders not actually annexing anything.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Th British State was involved in all of it though as Rhyf mentioned

Not really - the State was very small, the fact that the government of India was actually a Private Enterprise should tell you something about how "small government" Britain was at the time. Fact is - people at acting as though the British Government of 1833 was the same monolithic entity as today. In this case, it certainly wasn't - as evidenced by the fact that the government had to pay for the slaves it emancipated, rather than simply forcing the issue by writ.


Why did I have to py for V2s shot at London? I never even saw one of them. And neither did my generation sign any contracts that said we nee to pay.

You shouldn't have - but your petty vengeance is no reason to beggar my children now - and in any case the British, French And Americans about the same amount of money rebuilding your infrastructure and bedding in democracy. In your case you were liable for a contract you inherited - in this case there is no contract.

Anyway - I have read up on this - and the claim being made is that Britain is responsible for the current situation in the Caribbean, and should pay for the development of these nations. Some of these nations are wealthy tax havens with a budget surplus.

What is being asked now is patently immoral - the beggared being asked to pay the walthy for the sins of their great-great-great-grandfathers.


Weren't you and your granddad already indirectly and directly punished by the disinheritance? Also don't forget that this is completely different because while corporations are people, nations are not.

They are suing the State, not the "nation", and the State is to all intents and purposes a limited company whose shareholders are the citizens. That is why you can sue a State, but not a nation.

In any case - the British Government already paid to emancipate the slaves, paid to develop infrastructure in former slave colonies, and continues to pay into a development fund.

Now we are being asked to may for a fourth​ time.

[Brenus]

Brit: Erm, we ended slavery around the world?
Moralist: No, you didn't and even if you would have, you want a cookie because you stop what you shouldn’t have done and profit from.

I am a serial killer but I stopped all by myself. I want the Peace Nobel Price as I am really a good man… Kind of logic...

[Beskar]

I am a serial killer but I stopped all by myself. I want the Peace Nobel Price as I am really a good man… Kind of logic...

You obviously have not watched Dexter.

I recommend skipping the finale though, it was bad... or just the last season entirely.

[Pannonian]

In any case - the British Government already paid to emancipate the slaves, paid to develop infrastructure in former slave colonies, and continues to pay into a development fund.

Now we are being asked to may for a fourth​ time.

And there's the country of Sierra Leone which was created from the slaves that we liberated from slavers. We patrolled the seas, stopped the slavers from transporting the captives across the Atlantic, then brought them to somewhere where the continental slavers couldn't reach them, and IIRC developed some infrastructure in this new colony as well. And in the 00s, we were asked again for additional help in further developing this liberated slave colony, and we obliged (having already stepped in to stop a civil war there, for no other reason than we felt obliged to a former colony). And none of this counts, as apparently we're former serial killers who did nothing more than stop serial killing.

All the rules are set up with the purpose of giving Britain the kicking which we've never got thanks to our Channel.

[Greyblades]

Brit: Erm, we ended slavery around the world?
Moralist: No, you didn't and even if you would have, you want a cookie because you stop what you shouldn’t have done and profit from.

I am a serial killer but I stopped all by myself. I want the Peace Nobel Price as I am really a good man… Kind of logic...

Eh. That doesn't really work. It's more like "the entire world were serial killers, we were the first to stop and we made huge effort to make everyone else stop. So could the rest of the ex serial killers stop giving me crap?"

[Sarmatian]

And there's the country of Sierra Leone which was created from the slaves that we liberated from slavers. We patrolled the seas, stopped the slavers from transporting the captives across the Atlantic, then brought them to somewhere where the continental slavers couldn't reach them, and IIRC developed some infrastructure in this new colony as well. And in the 00s, we were asked again for additional help in further developing this liberated slave colony, and we obliged (having already stepped in to stop a civil war there, for no other reason than we felt obliged to a former colony). And none of this counts, as apparently we're former serial killers who did nothing more than stop serial killing.

It counts, but it doesn't excuse. That's the point. The scale is what is important here. Brenus' example of a serial killer is a good one. If a serial killer kills 50 people and saves one life, that one life save doesn't excuse his previous actions.

Britain liberated 150 thousand slaved. It transported 5 millions.
British state earned huge amounts of money from it and returned only a fraction of it.

No one is disputing that British actions at stopping slavery should be taken into account, it just doesn't absolves Britain of blame.

It gives them a better position than other countries involved, that's true.


All the rules are set up with the purpose of giving Britain the kicking which we've never got thanks to our Channel.
What rules? Let's face it, there's no chance of UK and other nations involved being forced to pay anything, ever. This entire discussion is purely academic.

And please stop playing the victim and try to go back to serious discussion.


Not really - the State was very small, the fact that the government of India was actually a Private Enterprise should tell you something about how "small government" Britain was at the time. Fact is - people at acting as though the British Government of 1833 was the same monolithic entity as today. In this case, it certainly wasn't - as evidenced by the fact that the government had to pay for the slaves it emancipated, rather than simply forcing the issue by writ.

That doesn't excuse UK in the slightest.




What is being asked now is patently immoral - the beggared being asked to pay the walthy for the sins of their great-great-great-grandfathers.

They are suing the State, not the "nation", and the State is to all intents and purposes a limited company whose shareholders are the citizens. That is why you can sue a State, but not a nation.

In any case - the British Government already paid to emancipate the slaves, paid to develop infrastructure in former slave colonies, and continues to pay into a development fund.

Now we are being asked to may for a fourth​ time.


States are responsible for their actions and they can get sued. If found guilty, they face some kind of sanctions, which 99,99% of times involves monetary reparations. Just because you weren't in the country then, or weren't born yet, or weren't involved in it or you voted for the other party doesn't affect whether the state is guilty or not.

[Papewaio]

Surely the Caribbean is a mix of former masters and slaves. They can pay themselves.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It counts, but it doesn't excuse. That's the point. The scale is what is important here. Brenus' example of a serial killer is a good one. If a serial killer kills 50 people and saves one life, that one life save doesn't excuse his previous actions.

Britain liberated 150 thousand slaved. It transported 5 millions.
British state earned huge amounts of money from it and returned only a fraction of it.

No one is disputing that British actions at stopping slavery should be taken into account, it just doesn't absolves Britain of blame.

It gives them a better position than other countries involved, that's true.


What rules? Let's face it, there's no chance of UK and other nations involved being forced to pay anything, ever. This entire discussion is purely academic.

And please stop playing the victim and try to go back to serious discussion.



That doesn't excuse UK in the slightest.





States are responsible for their actions and they can get sued. If found guilty, they face some kind of sanctions, which 99,99% of times involves monetary reparations. Just because you weren't in the country then, or weren't born yet, or weren't involved in it or you voted for the other party doesn't affect whether the state is guilty or not.

Nobody is saying Britain should be "excused" for past actions on the basis of past actions, and again the case is not being argued on those grounds.

The case is being argued on the grounds that Britain alive today should be on the hook for the state of the Caribbean today.

Honestly, if we are held accountable for the actions of our ancestors we ALL deserve the death penalty.

[Pannonian]

Nobody is saying Britain should be "excused" for past actions on the basis of past actions, and again the case is not being argued on those grounds.

The case is being argued on the grounds that Britain alive today should be on the hook for the state of the Caribbean today.

Honestly, if we are held accountable for the actions of our ancestors we ALL deserve the death penalty.

The fact that we're alive today is proof enough that we deserve punishment, as the security of our ancestors was only ensured by violence or the threat of violence towards others. If we live in a country that's any bigger than a village, that's another reason for punishing us, as it was only achieved through subjugating others. I now understand why those former public schoolboys go to dominatrixes to get their bottoms spanked. They're not being kinky, they're merely atoning for the sins of our fathers.

[Husar]

The fact that we're alive today is proof enough that we deserve punishment, as the security of our ancestors was only ensured by violence or the threat of violence towards others. If we live in a country that's any bigger than a village, that's another reason for punishing us, as it was only achieved through subjugating others. I now understand why those former public schoolboys go to dominatrixes to get their bottoms spanked. They're not being kinky, they're merely atoning for the sins of our fathers.

You united and decided to work together, completely different situation.
A contract was signed that you have to adhere to now.

This is not about Britain enriching itself or about these greedy people asking for your money now. What it is about is that you took other peoples' freedom and you knew it was wrong. And the French and the Dutch and everybody else also knew it was wrong. And now we all need to pay for it somehow to make up for these wrongs.

As for myself, I think ten pages of discussing over the channel against the tidal waves of nationalism, patriotism and self-victimization in favor of the wronged should count for something...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It counts, but it doesn't excuse. That's the point. The scale is what is important here. Brenus' example of a serial killer is a good one. If a serial killer kills 50 people and saves one life, that one life save doesn't excuse his previous actions.

Britain liberated 150 thousand slaved. It transported 5 millions.
British state earned huge amounts of money from it and returned only a fraction of it.

No one is disputing that British actions at stopping slavery should be taken into account, it just doesn't absolves Britain of blame.

It gives them a better position than other countries involved, that's true.


What rules? Let's face it, there's no chance of UK and other nations involved being forced to pay anything, ever. This entire discussion is purely academic.

And please stop playing the victim and try to go back to serious discussion.



That doesn't excuse UK in the slightest.





States are responsible for their actions and they can get sued. If found guilty, they face some kind of sanctions, which 99,99% of times involves monetary reparations. Just because you weren't in the country then, or weren't born yet, or weren't involved in it or you voted for the other party doesn't affect whether the state is guilty or not.

So the sins of the past are to be held against our current accounts forever?

Have you lot paid the Turks an indemnity for Obilic's treachery?

[Montmorency]

Aside from all the moralization on both sides, which means nothing to me, I have not seen anyone address the issues of repose and limitation.

[Husar]

Aside from all the moralization on both sides, which means nothing to me, I have not seen anyone address the issues of repose and limitation.

Leave the plane of materialism please. Money means nothing here, what we need to talk about are feelings that were hurt.
That's part of the reason why sending money did not and will never make up for it. And they keep demanding more because the money cannot fill the holes in their souls.

It's absolutely no wonder that you materialism-fixated capitalists are utterly unable to fix a simple issue here!!!

[Pannonian]

You united and decided to work together, completely different situation.
A contract was signed that you have to adhere to now.

This is not about Britain enriching itself or about these greedy people asking for your money now. What it is about is that you took other peoples' freedom and you knew it was wrong. And the French and the Dutch and everybody else also knew it was wrong. And now we all need to pay for it somehow to make up for these wrongs.

As for myself, I think ten pages of discussing over the channel against the tidal waves of nationalism, patriotism and self-victimization in favor of the wronged should count for something...

Oh dear, by going on with your moralising, you've missed the greatest shame of our chapter on slavery. We did far worse than doing something we knew to be wrong. What we did hasn't been touched on in all the anti-British arguments here, but it was worse than anything that we've been accused of in this thread.

[Husar]

Oh dear, by going on with your moralising, you've missed the greatest shame of our chapter on slavery. We did far worse than doing something we knew to be wrong. What we did hasn't been touched on in all the anti-British arguments here, but it was worse than anything that we've been accused of in this thread.

You mean letting millions of Indians starve pretty much on purpose?

I didn't forget that.

[Pannonian]

You mean letting millions of Indians starve pretty much on purpose?

I didn't forget that.

Hah, trust you to come up with all sorts to end with the conclusion that the British are wrong and to find arguments that fit that conclusion. I was talking about the topic of this thread, but that matters not as the object is to find the Brits guilty, and it's just a matter of thinking up something to result in that verdict.

[Montmorency]

Leave the plane of materialism please. Money means nothing here, what we need to talk about are feelings that were hurt.
That's part of the reason why sending money did not and will never make up for it. And they keep demanding more because the money cannot fill the holes in their souls.

It's absolutely no wonder that you materialism-fixated capitalists are utterly unable to fix a simple issue here!!!

Even that way, they can't force others to love them! They must find love on their own - the love that resides within them. :on_adore:

[Husar]

Hah, trust you to come up with all sorts to end with the conclusion that the British are wrong and to find arguments that fit that conclusion. I was talking about the topic of this thread, but that matters not as the object is to find the Brits guilty, and it's just a matter of thinking up something to result in that verdict.

Again, you're wrong.

The Dutch did horrible things in Indonesia but before I ever got to discuss this the thread got swarmed by British nationalists who wanted to propagate how their nation never did anything wrong and any and all claims that it has any guilt whatsoever are null and void. So I was trying to be polite and go with the flow in the sense that we only discussed the British part since I didn't see any Dutchies or French claiming that their countries never did anything wrong or made up for everything.

And now you try to turn it all around and victimize yourselves when it was you who made this thread all about discussing Britain's "glory"...

[a completely inoffensive name]

No policy ever, no matter how noble (or rotten, for that matter), wasn't 100% perfectly executed. That's true everywhere and for everything. From taxes, across university tuition to medical insurance.

If we agree that reparations are something that's fair and needed than it's something that should be done. Like in all other cases, we should take lessons learned from previous attempts and look how we can improve on them. Taking one example where such policy didn't yield desired results is no reason to refrain from even trying.

I offered an idea how it could be done a few pages back.



What I think is fair is actually a compromise - we couldn't really take the price of pepper in 15th and 16th century when 1kg of pepper = 1kg of gold as a starting point. Likewise, it wouldn't be fair to base the calculations on the 21st century price of pepper. Some middle ground would have to be found.
It also wouldn't be fair to expect former colonial masters to "pay up" immediately. Maybe former colonial countries could set up very long term funds for development of their former colonies. Money from those funds would be used to build infrastructure, highways, railways, ports, airports, schools, university, hospital, housing etc... in former colonies and companies from the former colony and former colonial country would have preferential status to be picked. So, for example, in the case of India, British and Indian companies would have "first option" to build a highway in India. If they can't do it or don't want to do it under allotted budget for whatever reason, only then are other international companies offered to do it.

That way there would be less corruption than with cash payments, former colonial countries could bear it relatively painlessly, former colonies get infrastructure developed for free and the money is injected, at least partially, into the former colonial country economy.

So you are suggesting that Western nations give a steady, long term injection into the private sector of former colonies instead of handing money directly to the local government.

Or in other words, we should do what the free market is already doing for us. If I am not mistaken, what you previously called "the stupidest argument you have ever heard" is actually your own.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is not about Britain enriching itself or about these greedy people asking for your money now. What it is about is that you took other peoples' freedom and you knew it was wrong. And the French and the Dutch and everybody else also knew it was wrong. And now we all need to pay for it somehow to make up for these wrongs.

Absurdity bolded.

1. I took nobody's freedom, contemporaries of my ancestors did, possibly one or two of my ancestors, but unlikely.

2. They didn't know it was wrong - once they realised it was wrong, they moved to stop it.

3. No - we don't. I did not commit the crime, I should not have to suffer the punishment.

You want to punish me for something?

Punish me for voting Tory if you deem that morally wrong, but not for slavery which ended almost 200 years ago.

[Husar]

1. I took nobody's freedom, contemporaries of my ancestors did, possibly one or two of my ancestors, but unlikely.

We've discussed this, it's irrelevant since the Royal Navy was not a private organization AFAIK and both enabled and protected these practices at first. Plus they paid taxes/blood money to the state which gladly accepted it. Noone holds you personally responsible, it's a state thingy.


2. They didn't know it was wrong - once they realised it was wrong, they moved to stop it.

Give me a break! The Israelites knew it was wrong when they moved out of Egypt, Spartacus knew it was wrong when he tried to break free but the 17th century Europeans never had a clue... Trying to pass off medieval people as naive and dumb doesn't always work and these weren't even medieval anymore...


3. No - we don't. I did not commit the crime, I should not have to suffer the punishment.

I did not throw any bombs at Britain and I didn't sign any contracts, give me my money back already!
In other words, irrelevant.

[HoreTore]

You mean letting millions of Indians starve pretty much on purpose?

I didn't forget that.

Or the Irish.

As a rule of thumb, if your nationality starts with an I, you should expect genocide from the brits sooner or later....

Also, I still note that the Brits are playing the victim-card like there's no tomorrow. Interestingly they've been joined by an american, who is keen to add his own card to the pile... Must be tough living in those countries.

I know the brits can be explained by a lack of quality women on that isle, but there's no excuse for the yanks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We've discussed this, it's irrelevant since the Royal Navy was not a private organization AFAIK and both enabled and protected these practices at first. Plus they paid taxes/blood money to the state which gladly accepted it. Noone holds you personally responsible, it's a state thingy.

A "State" thingy you want me to pay for - you want to close hospital wards, or not re-surface roads, or raise taxes for this "thing".

Sorry, not buying it.


Give me a break! The Israelites knew it was wrong when they moved out of Egypt, Spartacus knew it was wrong when he tried to break free but the 17th century Europeans never had a clue... Trying to pass off medieval people as naive and dumb doesn't always work and these weren't even medieval anymore...

EPIC FAIL.

I'm a medieavalist, stupid, I'm the last person to be claiming people in the past were mentally deficient - your own faculties are in doubt as you've forgotten that, though.

Did the Israelites know it was wrong when they left Egypt? No - they left under a Divine mandate. Spartacus - Spartacus believed he and his followers deserved their freedom, which is not to say he was anti-slavery. He just didn't believe HE should be a slave. As to Renaissance Europeans - they considered Sub-Saharans to be animals, which is the only way they could conceive of slavery.


I did not throw any bombs at Britain and I didn't sign any contracts, give me my money back already!
In other words, irrelevant.

Yeah - sure - I already said it was immoral for you to have to pay reparations. On the other hand, there IS a difference because you DID inherit a legal obligations. There was no legal obligations to recompense slaves, and you cannot retroactively create one.

[Montmorency]

As a rule of thumb, if your nationality starts with an I, you should expect genocide from the brits sooner or later....

I thought the North African/Mediterranean campaign was one of the cleaner ones. :wacko:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...As a rule of thumb, if your nationality starts with an I, you should expect genocide from the brits sooner or later.....

Now paging all persons named Ian. Please report to.....

[Papewaio]

Any living slaves or their children should be compensated. Beyond that it is a bit late to help the people who were affected.

As for states getting compensated. They already were. The Caribbean states infrastructure was created by slaves, slavers and free slaves. At no point does there early infrastructure not have a benefit to the state even if it wasn't for the benefit of the now dead workers.

=][= As for Britain they did a good thing in freeing slaves. But I do wonder if the primary motivation was not freedom but screwing over USA to limit its slave based economic power.

[Papewaio]

Any living slaves or their children should be compensated. Beyond that it is a bit late to help the people who were affected.

As for states getting compensated. They already were. The Caribbean states infrastructure was created by slaves, slavers and free slaves. Their early infrastructure benefited from slavery and their latter infrastucture benefited from having free slaves. It should be these states that pay any living slaves.

=][= As for Britain they did a good thing in freeing slaves. But I do wonder if the primary motivation was not freedom but screwing over USA to limit its slave based economic power.

[Sarmatian]

Nobody is saying Britain should be "excused" for past actions on the basis of past actions, and again the case is not being argued on those grounds.

Pannonian is arguing the issue on that very premise - Britain devoted resources to fight slavery later on and that makes Britain unaccountable for slave trade.

Furthermore, he's blindly rejecting that France and Netherlands are also in the same boat so that he can maintain his "Britain being singled out" charade.


The case is being argued on the grounds that Britain alive today should be on the hook for the state of the Caribbean today.

Honestly, if we are held accountable for the actions of our ancestors we ALL deserve the death penalty.

That is what we should have been arguing, indeed. How far back can it go? Obviously, just because it happened in the past doesn't get anyone of the hook. All crimes happened "in the past" by the time they're prosecuted. That's why the law usually sets time limits and the general rule is that severity of the crimes determines the length. A traffic violation a few years, murder for the entire life and genocide NEVER (that's between countries, obviously). I'm not the expert on international law by any means but I know that because Serbia and Croatia are suing each other for genocide at the moment. Of course, there needs to be a legal link, but otherwise there is no time limit. So, if there was a legal link between Gaul and modern France, and between Rome and Italy, France could sue Italy for genocide committed by Julius Caesar, according to current international laws.

Enslaving and/or selling human beings is a very serious crime, naturally, so it should probably have a very long time limit.



So the sins of the past are to be held against our current accounts forever?

Have you lot paid the Turks an indemnity for Obilic's treachery?

You're kidding, right? Just in case you're not, there are a few reasons:

1. Medieval Serbian state doesn't have anything to do with modern Serbia
2. Ottoman Empire doesn't have anything to do with modern Turkey.
3. Even if they did, medieval Serbian state was the one invaded.
and most importantly...
4. Obilic is a fictional character.


So you are suggesting that Western nations give a steady, long term injection into the private sector of former colonies instead of handing money directly to the local government.

Or in other words, we should do what the free market is already doing for us. If I am not mistaken, what you previously called "the stupidest argument you have ever heard" is actually your own.

1. Private capital moving around is not the same as investments by the state. Even though society at large can benefit from it, it's purpose is enriching the owner of the capital. Also, private capital isn't required to move to that particular place and it can move somewhere else instantly, so, no, "free market" isn't the solution. I talked about mandatory reparations in form of state investments.

2. Developing infrastructure isn't "injection in the private sector". Schools, universities, roads, railroads, housing... are considered public as anyone can use them and the entire society benefits from them.

So, no, that wasn't my argument, and, yes, it is still the most stupid argument I've ever heard.

[Husar]

A "State" thingy you want me to pay for - you want to close hospital wards, or not re-surface roads, or raise taxes for this "thing".

Sorry, not buying it.

Yes, the aim was that Britain will have to pay so much that it becomes more like Somalia. :rolleyes:
You'd have to send them all your strategic reserves of hugs and kisses.



EPIC FAIL.

I'm a medieavalist, stupid, I'm the last person to be claiming people in the past were mentally deficient - your own faculties are in doubt as you've forgotten that, though.

I'm sorry, you and your education were always the center of my universe, the only explanation for this error is either Alzheimers or an IQ of 50.


Did the Israelites know it was wrong when they left Egypt? No - they left under a Divine mandate. Spartacus - Spartacus believed he and his followers deserved their freedom, which is not to say he was anti-slavery. He just didn't believe HE should be a slave. As to Renaissance Europeans - they considered Sub-Saharans to be animals, which is the only way they could conceive of slavery.

Why then could slaves get freed and become free men if they were just animals?
Even some dude from Yale agrees with me that people were very well aware that the whole animal thing was just stuff they made up to justify slavery: http://www.yale.edu/glc/forum/davis.html


This is the basic "problem of slavery," which arises from the irreducible humanness of the slave. Although slaves were supposed be treated in many respects like dogs, horses, or oxen, as reflected in all the laws that defined slaves as chattel, the same laws recognized that throughout history slaves have run away, outwitted their masters, rebelled, murdered, raped, stolen, divulged plots for insurrection, and helped protect the state from external danger. No masters or lawmakers, whether in ancient Rome, medieval Tuscany, or seventeenth-century Brazil, could forget that the obsequious servant might also be a "domestic enemy" bent on theft, poisoning, or arson. Throughout history it has been said that slaves, if occasionally as loyal and faithful as good dogs, were for the most part lazy, irresponsible, cunning, rebellious, untrustworthy, and sexually promiscuous. This central contradiction was underscored in Roman law (the Code of Justinian), which ruled that slavery was the single institution contrary to the law of nature but sanctioned by law of nations. That is to say, slavery would not be permitted in an ideal world of perfect justice, but it was simply a fact of life that symbolized the compromises that must be made in the sinful world of reality. This was the official view of Christian churches from the late Roman Empire to the eighteenth century.

Bolded the part where he says they knew it was immoral...
According to the same article the idea that it was immoral because people should get along came a bit later from puritan christian groups but the basic idea that slaves were humans which were only treated like cattle and that the whole thing was evil in a way certainly existed before that.


Yeah - sure - I already said it was immoral for you to have to pay reparations. On the other hand, there IS a difference because you DID inherit a legal obligations. There was no legal obligations to recompense slaves, and you cannot retroactively create one.

But you DID legally inherit a crime in the same way. The difference being that the obligation to make up for that crime has been outstanding for many years. If you can inherit an obligation for compensation then surely you can also inherit the crime that requires such an obligation in the first place. If not, then the compensation should not be inherited either since the only reason it exists is the underlying crime that necessitated it.

Otherwise it's just the winner takes all, which is a very special kind of moral by itself.

[Tellos Athenaios]

1. Medieval Serbian state doesn't have anything to do with modern Serbia
2. Ottoman Empire doesn't have anything to do with modern Turkey.
3. Even if they did, medieval Serbian state was the one invaded.
and most importantly...
4. Obilic is a fictional character.


Though by the same token, neither France nor the Netherlands (and arguably, Britain, too) don't have anything to do with the historical states that perpetrated the crime: the 5th republic (1956), for example did not exist, nor did the modern incarnation of the Netherlands (1954). While the British state did exist, the Empire was until about the mid 19th century a collection of local governments when dealing with slavery (same applies to Dutch and French colonies); which is to say that the modern states being sued did not have any authority or executive power to enforce laws against slavery until that time. Once they did, slavery was either already abolished or would soon be on the orders of those very same colonial powers.

Additionally, the modern colonies don't have anything do with those former states either, though that shouldn't be relevant to the argument for denying or granting any reparations.

[drone]

=][= As for Britain they did a good thing in freeing slaves. But I do wonder if the primary motivation was not freedom but screwing over USA to limit its slave based economic power.

The US banned importation of slaves on Jan 1, 1808, which was as soon as the Constitution allowed it. All states had already banned importation of slaves a decade earlier. After 1808, slaves were either internally traded (descendents), or smuggled in from Spanish Florida or Texas. If it wasn't for the invention of the cotton gin, slavery in the US would have died before the Brits found religion. The British freed slaves during the 1812 war, but the Royal Navy's efforts against slave shipping were not targeted against the US.

[CBR]

What have the British done so far other than laugh at their former victims and tell them they got a few roads as net benefit?I have not seen any laughter from the UK, just regret and foreign aid. As there might be legal implications by officially apologizing, I don't think one should expect apologies.

Whether we look at GDP per capita or Human Development Index (HDI) it is rather difficult to claim that the islands of CARICOM are worse off than other small island nations. (one can compare them with various Pacific islands that can't claim being ruined by slavery) Sure, one could focus on Haiti but that nation is also a rather unique hell hole.

[InsaneApache]

And while this is not about individuals, every British citizen has in some way benefited from the wealth of the slave trade.

Piffle.

My family were labourers and forge workers as far back as 1828. I looked it up.

Yet again it's the poor bloody taxpayer that gets bent over without lube.

[InsaneApache]

It doesn't change the salient point. Start with the conclusion that Britain is to get a kicking, then set up the rules so that Britain is found to be in the wrong and needs a kicking, and tweak the rules so that Britain and only Britain gets a kicking. It's Calvinball.

You see mate, we've never been forgiven for standing up to two of the most repressive tyrannies facing Europe these last 200 years. Therefore we must be punished.

And they wonder why we feel a moral exceptionalism.

Perhaps because it is justified. We got it wrong but then we corrected it without anyone putting tanks on our lawns.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Piffle.

My family were labourers and forge workers as far back as 1828. I looked it up.

Yet again it's the poor bloody taxpayer that gets bent over without lube.

How you raise the funds is an entirely different matter from whether or not they ought to be raised in the first place. I completely agree that raising the money from the poorest would be wrong, hence why we need a progressive tax system where the rich really pay more. But that is another debate for another time.

Your point has no relevance as far as Britain's moral obligation as one nation to another goes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It does not matter how much good Britain has done with it's empire, people will only focus on the bad and demand reparations because Britain was the top dog at the time. Everyone hates the top dog because everyone wants to be the top dog.

[Montmorency]

It does not matter how much good Britain has done with it's empire, people will only focus on the bad and demand reparations because Britain was the top dog at the time.

Just like Nazi Germany!


Everyone hates the top dog because everyone wants to be the top dog.

Just like Nazi Germany!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just like Nazi Germany!

You said it twice and it was wrong both times.

[Sarmatian]

You see mate, we've never been forgiven for standing up to two of the most repressive tyrannies facing Europe these last 200 years. Therefore we must be punished.

And they wonder why we feel a moral exceptionalism.

Perhaps because it is justified. We got it wrong but then we corrected it without anyone putting tanks on our lawns.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

So, we've switched from "Brits are hated because we were never invaded" to "Brits are hated because we're morally superior".

It's getting better and better. Do go on, old chap, please.

[Husar]

You see mate, we've never been forgiven for standing up to two of the most repressive tyrannies facing Europe these last 200 years. Therefore we must be punished.

Two? I only count one Third Reich.


And they wonder why we feel a moral exceptionalism.

Perhaps because it is justified. We got it wrong but then we corrected it without anyone putting tanks on our lawns.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Most of the interventions in Europe only happened because you wanted to secure your own position and did not want a bigger continental power that might overshadow you. You managed that pretty well but to say the motives were altruistic is a bit much.
The slavery issue was also tackled more because of rivalries with the American colonists rather than altruistic reasons as has been mentioned. Of course as the victor you always got the chance to write the history and turn your motives into more noble ones than they really were at the time.

[Sarmatian]

Two? I only count one Third Reich.


Nappy being the other one.

[Brenus]

All this debate is about how a National Representation is built. The problem with Slavery and its abolition is to abolish Slavery (which is good) you first have to admit you had slavery (which is bad). And the fact that you built your wealth on it just adds complexity to the problem a little bit more.

You can add as well there is good memory you can celebrate (e.g. Trafalgar: be proud of your past), and the one you can’t (e.g. slavery: pfff, it is past, can you give me a break).

Now, I will add a little bit of Marxism analyse in this debate: England (and France and Holland) decided (to renew, in case of France where slavery was abolish by the French Revolution then reinstated by Napoleon) to abolished Slavery because they didn’t needed any more. The system of production had changed with the Industrial Revolution, and it was no more need of unpaid/cheap/enslaved labour. In fact, this mass became costly, as a slave child is not productive and you still have to feed him/her and provide shelter, and the same can be said for elderly slaves or sick ones. A “free” mass of workers, self-oppressed and in the rule of laws tailored by the ruling classes is cost effective, and they have to take care of themselves and that is it.
Even better, this mass becomes “customer” and will give back the money in form of rent, taxes and all other kind of products, services and miscellaneous. It is a win-win solution. And it makes you feeling good.

In summary, it is the story of a man who stole your socks, sell them back to you, and ask you to smile and to be grateful that you’ve got socks back. And it works, still today: you know, the Riches who create jobs instead of the Riches who become richer thanks to your work… The best joke EVER.:laugh4:

[Husar]

Nappy being the other one.

He said repressive tyrannies.
Napoleon was a conqueror but he also brought other countries a legal code or summing that they wanted to keep and stuff, repressive tyranny is a bit much even though I'm not a fan of his as should be evident given that I forgot what exactly he brought us. ~;)

[Brenus]

“Nappy being the other one.” Yeap, this is how GB sees History. Mind you, helping the Tsar of All Russia, very well-known champion of Freedom and reinstalling an Absolute King in France is not really fighting for freedom. And there is not absolute proof that democracy and freedom was much spread in UK either, but, again, that is a National Conscience Building exercise.