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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the silliest thing in this thread is the failure of some people to see the distinction between the Viking raids on the one hand, and the accumulation of wealth by the continuing British state in the slave trade on the other. This is not about individuals, it is about states, and paying reparations for ill-gotten gains. Some small part of the wealth that the British state has today is from historic gains from the slave trade. The British state of today is the same one that played a major role in fostering the Atlantic slave trade. Thus at an institutional level, it should acknowledge some sort of responsibility, especially when it is responsible for the on-going humanitarian disaster that is Haiti, and much of the trouble in Africa.

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

The British State was effectively bankrupt after WWII - the wealth of the State today is the result of taxes accumulated and debts paid down since then. If there is residual wealth left over from the days of slavery, it is in the hands of the aristocracy.

Nor is it true that we all benefited - slavery was generally a bad thing for my ancestors, being arable farmers in Hampshire and sheep farmers in Wales, slavery allowed for cheap imports, and the replacement of wool cloth with cotton in many places.

Even assuming that the modern British Citizen HAS benefited, so has the modern Caribbean, whole nations in the West Indies which are the result of the slave trade, and are now quite prosperous and democratic.

the point being - you cannot quantify the gain of either side - and in any case "reparations" are about punishment, we used them to (wrongly) punish Germany after WWI and following an immoral principle other are now trying to use them to punish us for something our forebears may or may not have done.

Are the sins of the father to be visited upon the son unto the 21st generation now?

Are you personally asked for anything?

Or is it the British state they ask, which has owned slaves?

I'm not sure that the State ever own slaves - but in any case as a voting Citizen of the State I effectively AM the State - I determine the government, I may even serve in the government, and my taxes pay for everything.

The British State is the British people, as Rhy has acknowledged, it is us who are being asked to actually pay. Given that historic responsibilty was has been acknowledged and apolagised for, and that responsibility was recognised AT THE TIME, and the Royal Navy was accordingly employed to dismantle the Slave Trade it had previously fostered...

I'm not buying what you're selling - even if Norway is willing to cough up too.

[Sarmatian]

we have been reparating-furiously(tm)* ever since we 'failed' at stopping the slave trade whilst spending the about 150 years and lives of over 1,500 british sailors freeing over 150,000 african slave**, i think that modern britain is sitting pretty by modern standards***.

... And British ships transported between 3.5 and 5 million slaves, Europeans overall about 12.

I like this sheet:

Who profited?

British slave ship owners - some voyages made 20-50% profit. Large sums of money were made by ship owners who never left England.

British Slave Traders - who bought and sold enslaved Africans.

Plantation Owners - who used slave labour to grow their crops. Vast profits could be made by using unpaid workers. Planters often retired to Britain with the profits they made and had grand country houses built for them. Some planters used the money they had made to become MPs. Others invested their profits in new factories and inventions, helping to finance the Industrial Revolution.

The factory owners in Britain - who had a market for their goods. Textiles from Yorkshire and Lancashire were bought by slave-captains to barter with. One half of the textiles produced in Manchester were exported to Africa and half to the West Indies. In addition, industrial plants were built to refine the imported raw sugar. Glassware was needed to bottle the rum.

West African leaders involved in the trade - who captured people and sold them as slaves to Europeans.

The ports - Bristol and Liverpool became major ports through fitting out slave ships and handling the cargoes they brought back. Between 1700 and 1800, Liverpool's population rose from 5000 to 78,000.

Bankers - banks and finance houses grew rich from the fees and interest they earned from merchants who borrowed money for their long voyages.

Ordinary people - the Transatlantic Slave Trade provided many jobs for people back in Britain. Many people worked in factories which sold their goods to West Africa. These goods would then be traded for enslaved Africans. Birmingham had over 4000 gun-makers, with 100,000 guns a year going to slave-traders.

Others worked in factories that had been set up with money made from the Slave Trade. Many trades-people bought a share in a slave ship. Slave labour also made goods, such as sugar, more affordable for people living in Britain.

[Montmorency]

@Monty: nationalization also means adopting responsibilities, so in that case the current british state would be liable for the actions of the East India Company...

Including for the past 200 years? So much for LLC...

[Pannonian]

So, after all of these reparations are dispensed.

Let us suppose that mores have shifted yet again, say 100 years hence, and the cultures of the world have reverted to a "it happened in the past, let it be" attitude.

Would those paying reparations today then receive payments because they were wrongfully forced to pay reparations?




Just a thought.

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.

[Sarmatian]

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 got me. I invented slave trade and colonial exploitation so that Britain would be in the wrong.

Neither ever existed in history.

[Pannonian]

You got me. I invented slave trade and colonial exploitation so that Britain would be in the wrong.

Neither ever existed in history.

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

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.

[Slyspy]

This is what happens when you regard history as the present in a different suit.

[Husar]

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

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.

[HoreTore]

Everything that Britain has done since we gave up slavery has also not existed in history. Only what we did when carrying out slavery existed in history. Ergo Britain is in the wrong, and has done nothing to redress this wrong. If other countries have also done the same, then rules are invented to excuse them whilst leaving Britain still in the wrong and in need of a kicking.

The scramble for Africa was post-slavery. So was quite a few of the massacres in India.

...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.

[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 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 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?

[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 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.