This relates to the BBC article [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790] which states “the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries”.

The UK abolished slavery in 1833. That’s 190 years ago. So nobody alive today has a slave, and nobody alive today was a slave.

Dividing £18tn by the number of UK taxpayers (31.6m) gives £569 each. Why do I, who have never owned a slave, have to give £569 to someone who similarly is not a slave?

When I’ve paid my £569 is that the end of the matter forever or will it just open the floodgates of other similar claims?

Isn’t this just a country that isn’t doing too well, looking at the UK doing reasonably well (cost of living crisis excluded of course), and saying “oh there’s this historical thing that affects nobody alive today but you still have to give us trillions of Sterling”?

Shouldn’t payment of reparations be limited to those who still benefit from the slave trade today, and paid to those who still suffer from it?

(Please don’t flame me. This is NSQ. I genuinely don’t know why this is something I should have to pay. I agree slavery is terrible and condemn it in all its forms, and we were right to abolish it.)

  • Dave@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I recommend the book “Guns, germs, and steel” if you’re interested. I’m not sure it covers this specifically, but it does cover in depth the reasons for different areas of the world being more of less wealthy (it has nothing to do with the people and everything to do with the geographic area, climate, natural resources including flora and fauna, and proximity to other populations).

    It’s an interesting read, even if a bit heavy.

    Edit: it turns out the book is a bit contentious: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views/#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I read it 10+ years ago. As I recall, its main point had to do with differences between Old World and New World populations.

      Since Africa falls into the Old World along with Europe, I don’t think the book actually supports any conclusions about this topic.

      • Dave@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        North Africa is grouped with Europe, with sub-Saharan Africa being separate. It is a book about how European populations came to dominate other populations so I’d call it pretty relevant.