h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Kelli, my appols, it was meant as a criticism of the idea not the person posting it!

What has to be remembered is the society in place at that time and what was considered normal. By many people, slavery was normal and slaves were cargo or property. Obviously to others this wasn't the case, hence the abolition.
This isn't a get out clause, but to go down the route of saying it was Lloyds fault for allowing humans to be defined as cargo, then one also has to condemn society at large, internationally, as being at fault for allowing this, and then you get into condeming everyone alive at that time in those societies who did not actively work to bring about the abolition of slavery. Again, aimed at the idea not the poster

I would guess that they are going after Lloyds because (a) Lloyds has lots of money and (b) there is still a direct line connecting them to the slavery whereas there may not be with say the slave companies to an existing company today.

~~~

>>The difference there is that the people involved in those systems are still alive. <<

Ictoan, does that mean that you think reparation should only ever be paid to the initial victim if the victim is alive? And shouldn't be paid to a victim's living family? Should this apply to say the family of someone who has been murdered?

Or if you can pay to living family, a daugher for instance, can you not pay to a grand-daughter, or great grand-daughter?

The people wanting reparation are alive, and are presumably descendants of the vicitms, so my question still stands - what is the statute of limitations on reparation?

Actually I think society at large does bear a responsibility. I think the issue isn't one of blame so much as who benefitted and how has that benefit enabled people living today and disabled other people living today.

One example might be that if you look at the wealthiest people in the US today they just happen to be predominantly white descendants of slave owners or white descendants of people who otherwise benefitted from the slave owning society. And if you look at the poorest people in the US they just happen to include the descendants of slaves.

These are living people in the present.

I think that if the current inequalities that have resulted from slavery were being adequately addressed then there would be less litigation. However now that the slaves have finally got their hands on the master's tools they can't really be blamed for using them.

kea, what I mean is there is a very large difference to reparation to a victim of an event, and reparation to those associated with the victim of an event. There is also the question of where that reparation comes from. If the persons guilty of the action are alive then that question is easily answered, they should be the ones any action is taken against. But if they are all dead? And not just dead, but dead for a good long time, such that even their immediate offspring are dead as well?

But what I actually meant by saying the people in these systems, was the people in the organisations that were doing the oppressing, rather than necessarily the oppressed. When you can say "There, *he* did it" there is little argument. When you say 'Someone acting for the same company as you did something bad several hundred years ago' my reaction would be a little different.

Slavery has had lasting consequences. Yes those families that got rich on it seem to have kept that wealth. But their money is not exclusivly from that. Did the slave owners come from a monied background anyway? What proportion of their wealth is from that? Have they made reparations at the time themselves? Can you actually separate the finances that way? If not, why should someone who has nothing to do with the acts in question, and whose opinion on the matter may well be totally opposed to that of those who did do it, be disadvantaged because of it? Strikes me as visiting the sins of the father on the sons. Or parents on the children in this more PC world!

The route I take from here is very much dependant on what reparations were made to the actual slaves when they were freed and slavery abolished.

As for other instances, as mentioned above, my reply is tempered by the fact that I have never lost a loved one to something where there was a person or organisation identifiable as being at fault.
That said, here goes
I have a problem with financial rewards for the loss of a person important to you. In some cases it is clear cut. E.g. if the person was the main bread winner or had some other financial role that cannot be easily replaced. Then yes, financial reparation is in order.

If I lost someone to some particular event, or maybe one of my ancestors had been victim of something, does the money bring that person back? Nope. Does it make the loss less? Nope. What exactly is it that I am supposed to do with the money that makes the loss of the person, or the troubles inflicted on the person, ok? Or is it like a consolation prize? I dunno. It would be tainted money to me. I'd feel very ambivalent about it.
I find this sort of thing hard to form an opinion on because there are so many variables. doing my best though And I am only speaking for me here.

just googled for
"abolition of slavery US reparation" without the quotes and found some very interesting transcripts. As well as some rather nasty people.

From what I can gather, no reparations were made to the slaves freed. I had in my mind that they were granted land or money or something as part of it. But given the number of people involved I guess that didn;t happen and my memory is going.

Er, weren't they given Liberia?

RF

I still think that somehow this has been deflected from the real perpetrators and those are the buyers and breeders in the US and since slavery didn't end in theUS until the 1860s I'm sure that there are plently of records for various enterprises that were built on the profits of zero cost labour.

Ofcourse they could also be campaign contributers.

RF, I dont think Liberia is much in the way of compensation and I don't think given is the right word either.

Why not and what would?

RF

Would you like to live there? Better compensation whoud be shares in the fruits of *their* labours.

<>
I agree.

But not if the shares in the fruits of their labours means reparations from Lloyds a company still in exsistence which owes its success in part to the the kidnap, murder, torture, brainwashing and slavery of thousands upon thousands of people. It would seem from most of the reactions here.

Damages are not some kind of booby prize for loosing a loved one. They can help with the cost of couselling and recuperation needed to get over the emense shock of having a loved one killed. They might pay you living expenses while you care for a severly injured relative or take over their caring duties as they are too depressed or pysically now unfir to do so themselves. In short they are to ensure the family does not fall into poverty as a result of neglegence or violence they have suffered.

This is what ought to be happening with the descendants of slaves. Look at the death rates and life expectancies of black people in the US and Europe and compare them to white people who live in the same cities and tell me there is not an ongoing legacy of slavery. Proportion of population in jail, expelled from school, harassed by police and winding up in jail with no literacy skills or qualkifications because of pressures whilst growing up. Number of black people in mental institutions because they grow up with feelings of alienation brought about by the same racism which allowed people to sell their ancestors as slaves.

Some of you dont want to see the truth but its all around us and its not going to go away just because you say you dont believe in it. Its not like fairies in Peter Pan. It is no good saying theres nothing that can be done or nothing needs to be done. Giving black peolpe equal rights is not enough when for centuries the black community had been driven into a the dirt by the boot of free trade.

So who better than traders who have a traceable link to slavery to have their profits skimmed to make reparations (put right) the ills which they profited from?

one love

Its not the company that did this, its the people in that company that take responsibility, and all those people are dead.

It can only be the job of the governments to make take care of the descendents of the victims now. And IMO this is best done by making sure everyone has an acceptable standard of education, nutrition, shelter etc. Not by paying lawyers to put on a show.

A coupla comments have been to the effect that those enjoying the rewards of previous generations of slave ownership and/or the society that developed from slavery owes the rest. Well, not being historically inclined, I'll just take a little stab at it.

What-ever happened in a region 50, 100 or 200 years ago is all a part of the making that society what it is today. Slave ownership stuff was part of the making of a society. Ethics (good and bad examples), unions, a few good and lousy governments, churches, world wars, etc, all basically made us what we are today. Those who can or want to mostly have the option of working for a living, earning respect and/or property that we want. This same history makes it possible for quite a load of lazy what-evers to happily suck the teat of society via welfare, social security frauds, frivolous law-suits and who knows what else.

So back to the earlier bit, everyone who currently enjoys benefits resulting from that era owes "something" to those who don't. I would think that everyone is benefiting from this resulting society to some degree. Who does that leave to make reparations to?

NOTE: Being Canadian, my history book isn't quite the same as for the American cousins. But we still have our "disadvantaged" folks who stroll about, vastly over-weight in their best-to-be-had clothing, smoking like chimneys and demanding reparation for shoddy treatment their great-great-oh-so-great ancestors received. Then they drive to their government-built homes in this year's model of what-ever car is coolest. After a hard work week, seeing this on my 12-year-old telly just gets me a bit riled.

The other point is of course that

a) It is absolutely useless judging someone from a different historical period by our own standards - for example, the elizabethans didn't bathe...

and b) What this company was doing was both perfectly legal and, as far as the people of the time were concerned, perfectly moral! So, how could they be sued for something that was legal?

Thirdly, if these people believe their human rights are less than others in their country simply because they are direct decendants of slaves and thus of another colour, then, quite simply, they should read their own constitution...

Amendment 14 states...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Therefore if they are being discriminated against today then they should sue their own government, it's down in black and white that they shouldn't be.

Oh, and just to add insult to injury, amendment 15.Section 1.

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

So, basically if these people are being persecuted then its the fault of their own government...

Who afterall were responsible for the slavery just as much as any other government - it wasn't until 1865 that they turned round and said slavery was wrong.

Apparition asked of Liberia >>Would you like to live there?<<

Last I heard, they were all shooting each other, so, probably not. However, they've got no-one but themselves to blame for that. You can lead a man to democracy, but you can't make him drink.

RF

RF shoving someone on a reservation and saying it's all up to you, you're cut off and it's your fault if it goes pear-shaped, may be the american way but that doesn't mean it's the right way.

I don't know the history of Liberia but it looks like a reservation from here.

marking...

Liberia already had an indigenous population which wasn't thrilled at being colonised by freed slaves....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,988886,00.html

Thanks for the link, interesting

Im not calling you all racist but its fairly clear that you have no concept of the problem and I feel fairly confident in saying its because you have no experience or empathy for those living under the problem.

Its OK if you want to blinker your selves and only see what indigenous ethnic groups in Canada get out of the Canadian state. Its OK for you to trawl up bits of the American constitution that enshrine the rights of people of all *races*. Its OK if you want to point out that I am posting this from a PC on a line provided free by the UK government or that I can travel around on the infrastructure built with the profits from forced labour, theft of resources and sale of actual living human beings as if they were nothing more than property and who were treated worse than animals.

You can happily go around thinking such things but it doesnt make them right because they only represent a small part of the picture.

Tribes who had no choice about their way of lives being destroyed and lands they used taken away and put into the ownership of people with guns. Black people do they really have equal rights in America not talking about on paper here, in reality do they? One word: Florida. Ive never been hungry a day in my life so yes I guess I have things quite good but I find it harder than white people to get jobs I live in a small service tenancy house, while the descendants of the people who owned my ancestors live in Stately homes.

Reparations are not just about the mullah, you idiots, they are about social justice. If we as a race learn that it is wrong to exploit other people it would be a good thing, Yes or No? Part of that process is learning that doing things which the law may allow are still wrong. People are still suffering from the deliberate dehumanisation of the ancestors, they now live with less rights and less hope of sucess due to the EVILS of the past. That most of you on this thread think no one should be held accountable for this or that the companies who profited should not be fined says alot about why black people still have the sh*tty end of the stick.

Lets get this straight the aim of all this is not to make people destitute or put people in the clink. Its to prove that even thoguh some of these things happened long ago they are/were illegal and completely immoral. Just like Nike or anyone else ignoring there own country labour laws to exploit third world workers today. While we live comfortable lives on the profits and benefits from this "virtual slave labour".

Dont even demenan youselves further by going on about cost of living in other countries or quality of life in less developed regions. If its wrong here to have fourteen year old girls missing school to work 16 hours for a dollar a day it is wrong in South East Asia too.

one love