Sweet FA
✪ Three rounds Lord, in my .44 ✪
I've checked with Twitter and cross referenced with The Monothought Clique. Results show 100% of those surveyed think you're a racist nob and want you to fuck off.
British Empire and Slave Trade Reparations
- Thread starter Humberto
- Start date
andysays
Love and solidarity
Again, I don't know about the vast majority of left-wingers, but I myself suffer from multiple personality disorder.
I can't decide which of the 11 flavours of Quality Street best reflects my personality.
Most often it's the Purple One or the Green Triangle. It's never the Toffee Penny though, I'm not crazy.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
If I thought it was worth the effort engaging, I might. But you’re doing nothing to convince me otherwise. Quite the reverse.
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Yes. They're all coming here. And we're going to build new houses at a rate of one every 90 seconds to accommodate them.
And they all get a massive telly off the council. Hotel Chocolate’s mate’s girlfriend’s mum’s hairdresser heard that off someone who’s brother’s window cleaner’s wife works at the council.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
agricola put up the ten point plan.
Its also about how slavery was ended ( as run by this country). After emancipation the ex slaves were still bound to the plantations for a period of time. The actual plantation system was kept going.
It was a partial emancipation.
In the case of Haiti ( which is also member of Caricom) the ex slaves who fought for their freedom ended up having to pay France reparations. Which crippled the new country.
In Haiti the plantation system crumbled. The ex slaves hated the plantation system and refused to work in it
In ex British slave colonies , apart from the slaves being free, it was largely business as usual
Hence the CARICOM ten point plan saying what I've quoted above.
The economy of the Carribbean under slavery was based on Sugar production. This was highly destructive to the ecology of the islands. Sugar plantations were about maximising the most profit out of the land. Regardless of the effects. The British slave colonies eventually suffered due to this as the soil was exhausted and productivity fell.
Haiti ( the French colony) was at one time the most profitable of the European slave plantations.
Sugar production was high risk business. But could make a family extremely rich very quickly.
So from the start and after emancipation the economy of a lot of the Carribbean islands was one sided.
This continued after emancipation of slaves. With many struggles by the descendents of ex slaves against colonial rule.
Hence if I read it correctly as part of reparations package islands want knowledge transfer to build a more sustainable economy.
The economic side of the ten points seems to me perfectly reasonable. Debt cancellation for example.
Some of the rest I'm not so sure about.
I think there can be to much emphasis on slavery to the neglect of later British Empire. Which in many ways was just as exploitative in its long term effects on the colonies.
Also reparations can come across as expecting individuals to apologise. As has been pointed out not everyone in this country imo gained from slavery in that sense. A Nouveau rich did develop during slave period. Fortunes made and lost in the high risk sugar business.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
Unless your next post backs up this claim from a credible source, you will be banned from this site.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
One thing that could be considered would be surrendering our permanent seat on the UN Security Council and giving it to the Commonwealth, who'd then represent the nations making it up. There would be a lot of justice in this because it was after all the nations of the Commonwealth who fought and won that war, plus at a stroke you'd give SC representation to a significant chunk of the rest of the world.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
In general, though, I do want to address this.
The Industrial Revolution was built on the backs of enslaved labour. The cotton mills of the north of England were built to process cotton picked by unpaid people stolen from their homes, and then bred and owned and traded as if farm animals.
Without that system of slavery, cotton would not have been the profitable crop it was. As is evidenced by the economic collapse of so many cotton plantations after Emancipation. The US South moved from a system based on a slave owning elite to a system of sharecropping, more akin to feudalism. The exploitation and oppression of the descendants of enslaved people was far from over, and is a huge and complex area of study in itself.
Similarly in Britain, Abolition did not end the exploitation of the descendants of enslaved people or the regions their ancestors were stolen from or sent to. Compensation for Abolition was paid to the slave owners not to the enslaved people. And that Compensation debt has only just been paid off by the British taxpayer.
The Royal Family built their wealth on slavery. They did not contribute to the compensation, and indeed until recently did not pay tax at all. (The formula by which they now do pay tax is a face saving scam).
The wealthy classes who profited from the misery of enslaved people remain the wealthy classes today. By and large the same names are those that appear in the annals of the wealthy today as then.
The lives of the workers in the cotton mills of the North of England, of the coal mines that powered many of them, of the labourers who built the infrastructure, who serviced the Industrial Revolution were lives marred by exploitation, as economic resources tapped for the enrichment of others, and their descendants are by and large still the working class today.
Those workers and their descendants lived in a country whose general wealth benefited from slavery. But to pretend they themselves benefited in anything but a globally relative way is baffling to people who are relatively disadvantaged within their own society. Especially when the library in their community is closing, rather than the one in the middle class neighbourhood, for example.
And of course it comes down to the way the powerful sell this. Just as they always define exactly what "we" means, and how "all being in it together" will affect the different classes.
They want it simplified into "white people are privileged", because though that has some degree of truth, it isn't the whole picture of what class is and how capitalism was built. They desperately don't want that picture to be any clearer.
The solution is to restructure society in a way that is universally equitable. And in the meantime to build a value system that presents that as what we're building to achieve. Rather than a literally racist "common sense" in which race is a thing.
Whiteness and blackness are constructs which rationalised slavery post hoc. Racism created race, not vice versa.
We must acknowledge the damage done by racism, and acknowledge that reality, at the same time as establishing the above as the basis for moving forward.
But of course Starmer doesn't want that any more than Badenoch or Farage do. They all want divide and rule to prevent us from seeing that the haves remain the haves.
The Industrial Revolution was built on the backs of enslaved labour. The cotton mills of the north of England were built to process cotton picked by unpaid people stolen from their homes, and then bred and owned and traded as if farm animals.
Without that system of slavery, cotton would not have been the profitable crop it was. As is evidenced by the economic collapse of so many cotton plantations after Emancipation. The US South moved from a system based on a slave owning elite to a system of sharecropping, more akin to feudalism. The exploitation and oppression of the descendants of enslaved people was far from over, and is a huge and complex area of study in itself.
Similarly in Britain, Abolition did not end the exploitation of the descendants of enslaved people or the regions their ancestors were stolen from or sent to. Compensation for Abolition was paid to the slave owners not to the enslaved people. And that Compensation debt has only just been paid off by the British taxpayer.
The Royal Family built their wealth on slavery. They did not contribute to the compensation, and indeed until recently did not pay tax at all. (The formula by which they now do pay tax is a face saving scam).
The wealthy classes who profited from the misery of enslaved people remain the wealthy classes today. By and large the same names are those that appear in the annals of the wealthy today as then.
The lives of the workers in the cotton mills of the North of England, of the coal mines that powered many of them, of the labourers who built the infrastructure, who serviced the Industrial Revolution were lives marred by exploitation, as economic resources tapped for the enrichment of others, and their descendants are by and large still the working class today.
Those workers and their descendants lived in a country whose general wealth benefited from slavery. But to pretend they themselves benefited in anything but a globally relative way is baffling to people who are relatively disadvantaged within their own society. Especially when the library in their community is closing, rather than the one in the middle class neighbourhood, for example.
And of course it comes down to the way the powerful sell this. Just as they always define exactly what "we" means, and how "all being in it together" will affect the different classes.
They want it simplified into "white people are privileged", because though that has some degree of truth, it isn't the whole picture of what class is and how capitalism was built. They desperately don't want that picture to be any clearer.
The solution is to restructure society in a way that is universally equitable. And in the meantime to build a value system that presents that as what we're building to achieve. Rather than a literally racist "common sense" in which race is a thing.
Whiteness and blackness are constructs which rationalised slavery post hoc. Racism created race, not vice versa.
We must acknowledge the damage done by racism, and acknowledge that reality, at the same time as establishing the above as the basis for moving forward.
But of course Starmer doesn't want that any more than Badenoch or Farage do. They all want divide and rule to prevent us from seeing that the haves remain the haves.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
How the fuck are motorways and water and electricity related to slavery that was outlawed un 1838 let alone state school.
Oxbridge and the famous public schools may have points to answer Sussex and Essex Uni not so much
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
tbf I don't think anyone is doing that on here. Hotel Chocolate is pretending that people are doing that, but I don't see it. The 'globally relative' bit is the part I've been concentrating on - it's the part that gives the UK as a collective entity a degree of responsiblity for actions of the past and the consequences of those actions that we still see today.
And yes, those consequences are not just played out globally. They are also, as you point out, structurally to be found right here in the UK. If you trace the direct descendants of those who received compensation for freeing their slaves, you will find an average wealth that is very significantly higher than the country's overall average wealth. I don't think that invalidates the point about the the UK as an entity from a global perspective, though. The two points can both be valid at the same time.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Jesus.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No, that was a general point about stuff in society out there. Not aimed at Urban posters.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Bollocks the UN security Council is not a nice to have its can you remove another member state off the planet in 4 mins? hence you get a veto.
No strategic nuclear arsenal no veto.
The reason being so nobody with the finger in the button gets pushed beyond their red line. Hence Israel and Russia can do what they like. Russia because it has 6000 nukes and is real has the US in its corner.
kalidarkone
Bringing YOU round.....
That doesn't absolve you of being a racist cunt and loving to fuck black people doesn't either.
Your poor daughter.
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
well, having gotten curious that's not gonna happen, the only other "source" for this quote I could find is a complaining that you can't use the n word anymore by someone called
Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque
so, nope, no credible source available there. bye bye chocolate hotel.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Sorry, I missed this point earlier: I have a migraine so feeling a bit vague. You’re right, the two things can be valid at once, and it was my intention to communicate that. Sorry if I wasn’t clear enough on that score.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
We’d still be on it though?
Boo Radley75
Well-Known Member
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Please put this confused trolling bigot out of their misery.
They clearly have issues and that's sad an all, but this isn't the place for shit posting. They seem to despise the community here.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you don't have the wherewithal to make the effort worthwhile
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
The more sophisticated argument against reparations is that this county abolished slavery. The British Empire matured and became a benevolent Empire giving colonial people a helping hand. The end result being the Commonwealth of Nations. Liberal Imperialism.
This attitude drags on.
Even some of the abolitionists thought this. Slaves should be freed. But they needed long period under white colonial rule. In order to enlighten and educate them to western standards.
One of the problems after emancipation was keeping the freed slaves on the plantations.
They tended to go off and work little plots of disused land. Preferring subsistence living to the Plantation.
To be fair the more radical abolitionists did think no compensation for Slaves owners. Slaves had assumed after being freed they would get land.
Some of plantation owners and abolitionists complained that freed slaves weren't growing up so to speak and becoming good workers.
There are parallels with people in Britain leaving the land and becoming the new industrial worker. Plantations and the new factory system had a lot in common.
This attitude drags on.
Even some of the abolitionists thought this. Slaves should be freed. But they needed long period under white colonial rule. In order to enlighten and educate them to western standards.
One of the problems after emancipation was keeping the freed slaves on the plantations.
They tended to go off and work little plots of disused land. Preferring subsistence living to the Plantation.
To be fair the more radical abolitionists did think no compensation for Slaves owners. Slaves had assumed after being freed they would get land.
Some of plantation owners and abolitionists complained that freed slaves weren't growing up so to speak and becoming good workers.
There are parallels with people in Britain leaving the land and becoming the new industrial worker. Plantations and the new factory system had a lot in common.
Sounds pretty legit then.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
No idea. Got the cunt on block
Rich individuals including Charles Windsor who clearly come from families who benefited from slavery choosing to pay reparations is different to the country as a whole doing so. Politically it would be impossible for a Labour government who are telling everyone there is a £40bn black hole to pay anything like what the UN Judge Patrick Robinson was asking for. Ethically it would be wrong because why should a poor British person today pay for the sins of rich people living two to four hundred years ago? The fact is there is no just way of correcting the historic crimes of slavery because nobody involved is alive today.
A better alternative would be for the West to invest more in the global south and to stop arming its brutal regimes and to think more globally. It is in everyone’s interests for the global south to be prosperous, stable and environmentally sound. This is not impossible and it would be better to focus on this rather than obsessing about historic guilt trips. In theory we could impose a radical redistribution of wealth across the former Empire starting at home justified on the basic of historic crimes and atrocities but that would require both the revolution that never comes and it being carried out fairly and without prejudice. More pragmatically the IMF and World Bank should be doing what they were set up to do and helping the developing world to stand on its own feet within the interdependence of the global system.
A better alternative would be for the West to invest more in the global south and to stop arming its brutal regimes and to think more globally. It is in everyone’s interests for the global south to be prosperous, stable and environmentally sound. This is not impossible and it would be better to focus on this rather than obsessing about historic guilt trips. In theory we could impose a radical redistribution of wealth across the former Empire starting at home justified on the basic of historic crimes and atrocities but that would require both the revolution that never comes and it being carried out fairly and without prejudice. More pragmatically the IMF and World Bank should be doing what they were set up to do and helping the developing world to stand on its own feet within the interdependence of the global system.
Similar threads
