Slavery - Reparations

[Todd_is_God]

On 05/09/2023 at 19:23, sophia said:

But generation upon generation we've continued to benefit and the heaviness of this shame weighs heavily upon me.

It's time to give a small portion back and I'd be for a north European penny on my income tax. To make the new tax as fair as it can be, a Windrush exemption would apply.

Obvious fishing trip

Edited September 6, 2023 by Todd_is_God

[sophia]

31 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Obvious fishing trip

You may well be correct and in the black and white nature of p&b debate, I might've given in to devilment.

However, that doesn't mean to say that there isn't a case for doing the right thing.

Here's the church of england having a go at doing just that

[invergowrie arab]

P&Bs big team found that nobody put money in the SCIAF box at school.

[Todd_is_God]

46 minutes ago, sophia said:

You may well be correct and in the black and white nature of p&b debate, I might've given in to devilment.

However, that doesn't mean to say that there isn't a case for doing the right thing.

Here's the church of england having a go at doing just that

If organisations who benefitted from it wish to volunteer money then that's up to them.

Any suggestion of the general public being directly or indirectly asked to do similar is, i'm afraid, woke pish.

[sparky88]

11 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

If organisations who benefitted from it wish to volunteer money then that's up to them.

Any suggestion of the general public being directly or indirectly asked to do similar is, i'm afraid, woke pish.

Agree with this but using 'woke' like this is shite GB news patter.

[Thane of Cawdor]

7 hours ago, FreedomFarter said:

The Highland Clearances likely couldn't have happened without transatlantic slavery. British imperialism, like all imperialism, was about expanding the market from which apex capitalists could extract profit. Without that expansion, the Clearances landowners couldn't otherwise have obtained the wealth needed to make such huge land purchases. Then nothing was more profitable within the empire than enterprises in the Americas using African slaves.

An academic report was published in 2020 detailing how many of the Clearances landowners had acquired their wealth due to transatlantic slavery:

https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2020/12/08/slavery-derived-wealth-in-scotland-today/

Not quite on topic, but an interesting read in which Marx discusses the usurpation of clan lands and the hypocrisy of the Countess of Sutherland's expression of sympathy for the anti-slavery cause. I suppose this expropriation was the first stage in privatising what was seen as a communal asset of the clan. Quite a lengthy read that might be summarised as "the fucking nerve of that woman

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm

[Todd_is_God]

3 hours ago, sparky88 said:

Agree with this but using 'woke' like this is shite GB news patter.

Fair

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, Thane of Cawdor said:

Not quite on topic, but an interesting read in which Marx discusses the usurpation of clan lands and the hypocrisy of the Countess of Sutherland's expression of sympathy for the anti-slavery cause. I suppose this expropriation was the first stage in privatising what was seen as a communal asset of the clan. Quite a lengthy read that might be summarised as "the fucking nerve of that woman

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/03/12.htm

That's a really good read. I was almost obsessed with the." improvements" and enclosure in general a few years ago. It's really interesting to see the man himself tie all the threads together.  

[RH33]

On 02/09/2023 at 12:40, virginton said:

As opposed to victims of the Clearances, who were removed because they were quite literally beneath cattle in the valuation of landowners. I'm really not sure that your comparison of pain is going to be productive of anything either.

The historical reality is that both land clearances and slavery were an existing norm in most societies, that were both accelerated into a mass process through the early stages of capitalism taking hold. If you're going to apply broad brush reparations to the descendants of one outrageous act, then there's no logical grounds to disregard the other. 

I've got just the PhD for you to read on the Subject of the Clearances so that you can enhance your qualified historian knowledge.

 

[HibeeJibee]

On 31/08/2023 at 12:23, coprolite said:

Some UN judge guy has come up with a figure of £19tn that the UK owes to various countries as compensation for slavery.

Bad news - Caribbean Union has had American consultants crunch the stats and they alone are asking us for £16tn.

France + Spain get away with just over £5tn each and £0.5tn from Denmark.

Caribbean countries to seek $33 trillion in slavery reparations | Evening Standard


Swedes, Norwegians and in particular Dutch seem to have won a watch and aren't cited at all... maybe the Scandinavians offloaded their liabilities to US who bought the Virgin Islands off them.

[SandyCromarty]

One terrible result of the Clearances was many of those cleared off their land were shipped out to the American and Caribbean Colonies to be harshly employed as indentured workers on plantations and land holdings.

To this day one of the poorest sections of Trinidadian society is the descendants of Scottish indentured plantation workers.

The indentured period pre dated the influx of African Slavery.

 

[Wee Bully]

2 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

One terrible result of the Clearances was many of those cleared off their land were shipped out to the American and Caribbean Colonies to be harshly employed as indentured workers on plantations and land holdings.

To this day one of the poorest sections of Trinidadian society is the descendants of Scottish indentured plantation workers.

The indentured period pre dated the influx of African Slavery.

 

I”m aware of the “red legs” in Barbados, but wasn’t aware of anything similar in Trinidad. 

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said:

One terrible result of the Clearances was many of those cleared off their land were shipped out to the American and Caribbean Colonies to be harshly employed as indentured workers on plantations and land holdings.

To this day one of the poorest sections of Trinidadian society is the descendants of Scottish indentured plantation workers.

The indentured period pre dated the influx of African Slavery.

 

I’m sure it was tam Devine that said in his book on the clearances that the demand for Africans was effectively to replace the British indentured emigrants when supply of them dried up. I’m not sure how well supported that is by the stats and timelines though. 

[Hedgecutter]

Who's going after Benin in all of this, or are they getting a free pass for being poor?

Was it not the case that the majority of victims involved in the Atlantic slave trade were enslaved by west Africans (members of rival tribes, prisoners of war etc) who sold them on to the British, French & Portuguese in exchange for weapons?

(genuine question, not rhetorical)

eta: or is that akin to a court making the gun manufacturer complicit in a mass shooting case?

Edited September 14, 2023 by Hedgecutter

[coprolite]

8 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

Who's going after Benin in all of this, or are they getting a free pass for being poor?

Was it not the case that the majority of victims involved in the Atlantic slave trade were enslaved by west Africans (members of rival tribes, prisoners of war etc) who sold them on to the British, French & Portuguese in exchange for weapons?

(genuine question, not rhetorical)

eta: or is that akin to a court making the gun manufacturer complicit in a mass shooting case?

The Ashanti made a fortune selling slaves to Europeans. We got our slaves from West Africa because there was a ready supply there. It's not like they only supplied us either. Slaves were also sold by them to other African countries and to the Ottoman and other Muslim countries. Those other countries didn't rely only on Wesr Africa though. Zanzibar in the Indian Ocean was also a thriving slave hub. And the Ottoman had a tradition of using northern slaves too. 

I don't think it's silly to hold the people who did the enslaving responsible too. They were intelligent people in a sophisticated society who exploited other people for their own personal gain. That in no way mitigates or reduces the responsibility of their European customers for what they did. 

 

[SandyCromarty]

13 hours ago, coprolite said:

I’m sure it was tam Devine that said in his book on the clearances that the demand for Africans was effectively to replace the British indentured emigrants when supply of them dried up. I’m not sure how well supported that is by the stats and timelines though. 

I think it's mentioned in his Scotland Nation in the Disintegration of Clanship chapter.

And you're right, the indenture system covered not only Scots, as I mentioned, but English, Welsh and Irish.

[ClydeTon]

22 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

Who's going after Benin in all of this, or are they getting a free pass for being poor?

Was it not the case that the majority of victims involved in the Atlantic slave trade were enslaved by west Africans (members of rival tribes, prisoners of war etc) who sold them on to the British, French & Portuguese in exchange for weapons?

(genuine question, not rhetorical)

eta: or is that akin to a court making the gun manufacturer complicit in a mass shooting case?

Yes- they were taken as PoWs, to pay off debts, were born into it, or opted to do it for food to survive.

Slaves in West African tribes were, often, put in better conditions than they otherwise had.

They didn't just trade them for guns, though. It went as devalued as pots, pans, and even rum. The Africans had trading fairly engrained in their culture, so they just assumed the Europeans were being fair in their offer.

[Wee Bully]

3 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

 

Slaves in West African tribes were, often, put in better conditions than they otherwise had.

 

Utter pish 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

7 hours ago, ClydeTon said:

Yes- they were taken as PoWs, to pay off debts, were born into it, or opted to do it for food to survive.

Slaves in West African tribes were, often, put in better conditions than they otherwise had.

They didn't just trade them for guns, though. It went as devalued as pots, pans, and even rum. The Africans had trading fairly engrained in their culture, so they just assumed the Europeans were being fair in their offer.

Mate, I genuinely think you have the best of intentions, but I take huge issue with this post.

I welcome you showing a degree of nuance, which most people don't, but at the end of the day, capturing people and trading them as if they are objects or property is evil.  Humans are not animals, and that even extends to fitba' rivalry, religion, race or class.  We are all of the same worth no matter what lady's womb came from.

I know an ex-slave on one of the Islands who is the greenkeeper of a golf course and the weird thing is actually does have a far  better status than most of the young locals who turn their noses up at local manual work to move to  'the big smoke' and get degrees etc by moving from this supposed backwater.  So messed up.  Many of them will return, only to return their parents' properties, complete with silver spoon.

The slaves were sold by their fellow Africans, which makes the whole thing even more messed up.  It wasn't just a case of whites making money off Blacks, but Blacks selling their own people to the wealthy whites.  Who made earned out of the whole thing?  The rich Black and rich Whites?  Yes.  Poor Blacks and poor Whites?  No.

It's not often I agree with @Wee Bully, but this is an exception.

[ClydeTon]

8 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

Utter pish 

Not to defend slavery, but it isn't.

Many Africans within their tribal system were on the verge of death constantly, hunting (especially once Europeans started lurking around) and just their own tribes could be dangerous and, often, hard to live in.

Many of the tribal leaders who enslaved their own did it for reasons such as repayment of debt or whatnot, but as slaves - in-between the hard labour (which, for a tribal male, was expected anywhere), they were given food on the table, effectively, so they didn't starve to death. They were also given - by west African standards of the time - fairly comfortable shelter, again, to satisfy the slaves and prevent them from running off/dieing.

They were, as most sources will agree, effectively part of the household. Unlike slaves taken to the Americas or Europe, it wasn't backbreaking manual labour. They were expected to perform household tasks and were even allowed to retain some freedoms.

The closest thing I can think of today is a Royal Servant, the only difference being that it's unpaid.

4 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

Mate, I genuinely think you have the best of intentions, but I take huge issue with this post.

I welcome you showing a degree of nuance, which most people don't, but at the end of the day, capturing people and trading them as if they are objects or property is evil.  Humans are not animals, and that even extends to fitba' rivalry, religion, race or class.  We are all of the same worth no matter what lady's womb came from.

I know an ex-slave on one of the Islands who is the greenkeeper of a golf course and the weird thing is actually does have a far  better status than most of the young locals who turn their noses up at local manual work to move to  'the big smoke' and get degrees etc by moving from this supposed backwater.  So messed up.  Many of them will return, only to return their parents' properties, complete with silver spoon.

The slaves were sold by their fellow Africans, which makes the whole thing even more messed up.  It wasn't just a case of whites making money off Blacks, but Blacks selling their own people to the wealthy whites.  Who made earned out of the whole thing?  The rich Black and rich Whites?  Yes.  Poor Blacks and poor Whites?  No.

It's not often I agree with @Wee Bully, but this is an exception.

Of course enslavement - in particular trading - is evil. You'd struggle to find anyone who argues that it isn't and it certainly won't be me.

The atlantic slave trade was beyond evil, the slaves were treated as cattle and as if they were interior. In Africa, that wasn't traditionally the case. It's important to make that clear. The point I made replying to Wee Bully applies here.

Until the Europeans came along and offered irresistible (to a tribal leader) items, mainly guns, to the leaders (who were the main owners of slaves), slaves were rarely traded.

As said, slaves were taken in to the household and, whilst they were still a servant, they weren't degraded in a manner similar to the slaves that went off on the boats. Africans were reluctant to sell their own until the offer, in their minds, became impossible to resist. If they didn't take the offer the Europeans would have just forced them to, and conquered them there and then, so it was accepted solely for short-term gain and power.

The closing sentence of yours is something I haven't ever really thought of, however. Although the rich Africans didn't benefit for long, as they used the guns to kill everyone in rival tribes and eventually that weakened them enough so the Europeans could just take over the land. But the ones who sold the slaves off died early enough to see the benefits.

That's what short-term thinking gets you, I suppose.