A rather large bill......

keepingquiet

sunami

keepingquiet You quoted my post. I hope you don't think it was dismissive and crass.

No, not at all. I was echoing your post but it was late and maybe some people had incensed me so much I was thinking straight.

Of course, many people have suffered oppression and hardship at the hands of the British government but this post was about the tri-angular slave trade so I was trying to stick to that issue instead of dragging in other examples as many were doing.

Never mind, this forum seems to be more about having a good moan than trying to see issues objectively... which is a shame because the posts which are really saying something often get drowned out.

Thankyou for your recent balanced post above.

You're welcome. I agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems the extremes (whether or not they're true) make better headlines. Balanced, nuanced discussion is rare.

sunami

keepingquiet

sunami

keepingquiet You quoted my post. I hope you don't think it was dismissive and crass.

No, not at all. I was echoing your post but it was late and maybe some people had incensed me so much I was thinking straight.

Of course, many people have suffered oppression and hardship at the hands of the British government but this post was about the tri-angular slave trade so I was trying to stick to that issue instead of dragging in other examples as many were doing.

Never mind, this forum seems to be more about having a good moan than trying to see issues objectively... which is a shame because the posts which are really saying something often get drowned out.

Thankyou for your recent balanced post above.

You're welcome. I agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems the extremes (whether or not they're true) make better headlines. Balanced, nuanced discussion is rare.

Perhaps a site where more intelligent discussion takes place might suit?

This is a chat forum, after all.

If I could find one... it seems most 'chat' or other sorts of forum (what other sorts are there?) seem to descend into petty point scoring after a while.

Also my definition of chat must be different to yours...

Well, we are allowed to debate the hot topics of the day of course, but that means not everyone agrees, which is the whole point of debate.

keepingquiet

If I could find one... it seems most 'chat' or other sorts of forum (what other sorts are there?) seem to descend into petty point scoring after a while.

Also my definition of chat must be different to yours...

If posters on Granset are incensing you that much, as you say, that is worrying.

🤔

KQ
Anyone who can't see the total moral bankruptcy of this situation must be made aware that there can be no justification for what took place in the name of profit, and the impact that had on the everyday lives of ordinary people in this country ever since...

What a strange post.

Who are these people who have claimed that there is any justification for slavery, either in the past or in the present day?

Who has denied or said that they were unaware that it was for profit?

What exactly do you mean by the total moral bankruptcy of this situation?

Reparation in terms of wholehearted apology, certainly. The government can do that on behalf of those who were involved.

Education about the wrongs of the slave trade (and including a link to the current trading) and it’s continuing impact is important.

IS asking people who are not, or whose ancestors were not involved, to be contribute directly or indirectly to monetary reparation a morally right thing to do?

Where are you saying that that the money would come from if the government paid the 13 trillion mentioned?

Since the government hasn’t the money to house or feed or arrange medical and dental treatment for the population today, woukd it mean that ordinary people would suffer even more for something they haven’t done and which wasn’t their fault.

Yes, it is widely considered morally bankrupt to make people pay for something they have not done, as it violates fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and consent.

Allira

sunami

keepingquiet

sunami

keepingquiet You quoted my post. I hope you don't think it was dismissive and crass.

No, not at all. I was echoing your post but it was late and maybe some people had incensed me so much I was thinking straight.

Of course, many people have suffered oppression and hardship at the hands of the British government but this post was about the tri-angular slave trade so I was trying to stick to that issue instead of dragging in other examples as many were doing.

Never mind, this forum seems to be more about having a good moan than trying to see issues objectively... which is a shame because the posts which are really saying something often get drowned out.

Thankyou for your recent balanced post above.

You're welcome. I agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems the extremes (whether or not they're true) make better headlines. Balanced, nuanced discussion is rare.

Perhaps a site where more intelligent discussion takes place might suit?

This is a chat forum, after all.

GN isn't the only discussion group in which I participate.

It does, however, have one little corner called "News and Politics". Unfortunately, most threads do seem to degenerate into point-scoring and deflection.

Mollygo

KQ
Anyone who can't see the total moral bankruptcy of this situation must be made aware that there can be no justification for what took place in the name of profit, and the impact that had on the everyday lives of ordinary people in this country ever since...

What a strange post.

Who are these people who have claimed that there is any justification for slavery, either in the past or in the present day?

Who has denied or said that they were unaware that it was for profit?

What exactly do you mean by the total moral bankruptcy of this situation?

Reparation in terms of wholehearted apology, certainly. The government can do that on behalf of those who were involved.

Education about the wrongs of the slave trade (and including a link to the current trading) and it’s continuing impact is important.

IS asking people who are not, or whose ancestors were not involved, to be contribute directly or indirectly to monetary reparation a morally right thing to do?

Where are you saying that that the money would come from if the government paid the 13 trillion mentioned?

Since the government hasn’t the money to house or feed or arrange medical and dental treatment for the population today, woukd it mean that ordinary people would suffer even more for something they haven’t done and which wasn’t their fault.

^Yes, it is widely considered morally bankrupt to make people pay for something they have not done, as it violates fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and consent.^

I think it was the comparison between the tri-angular trade and other kinds of slavery.

I will repeat that there is no evidence that anyone (Lenny Henry) included is asking for £18 trillion in recompense.

The OP seemed to think this was the case, and others were swept up in the assumption that this was a serious consideration. I think you seem to think it is the case too.

sunami

Allira

sunami

keepingquiet

sunami

keepingquiet You quoted my post. I hope you don't think it was dismissive and crass.

No, not at all. I was echoing your post but it was late and maybe some people had incensed me so much I was thinking straight.

Of course, many people have suffered oppression and hardship at the hands of the British government but this post was about the tri-angular slave trade so I was trying to stick to that issue instead of dragging in other examples as many were doing.

Never mind, this forum seems to be more about having a good moan than trying to see issues objectively... which is a shame because the posts which are really saying something often get drowned out.

Thankyou for your recent balanced post above.

You're welcome. I agree with you. Unfortunately, it seems the extremes (whether or not they're true) make better headlines. Balanced, nuanced discussion is rare.

Perhaps a site where more intelligent discussion takes place might suit?

This is a chat forum, after all.

GN isn't the only discussion group in which I participate.

It does, however, have one little corner called "News and Politics". Unfortunately, most threads do seem to degenerate into point-scoring and deflection.

I didn't 'seem to think this was the case' - the material in my post was not plucked from thin air, it has been widely reported. I haven't seen anyone elsed doubting what was said, as they too have read it presumably. How odd that so many, apart from yourself, appear to be aware of the same news item.

KQ
I will repeat that there is no evidence that anyone (Lenny Henry) included is asking for £18 trillion in recompense.
The OP seemed to think this was the case, and others were swept up in the assumption that this was a serious consideration.

I think you seem to think it is the case too.

I think you seem to think . . . 🤣

This was in the BBC News

A UN judge says the UK is likely to owe more than £18tn in reparations for its historical role in slavery.
A report co-authored by the judge, Patrick Robinson, says the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries.
But Mr Robinson said the sum was an "underestimation" of the damage caused by the slave trade.

Of course I understand that you might not consider either the BBC or the named judge to be a valid source of evidence.

I’m still interested to know your evidence for your accusations below.

Who are these people who have claimed that there is any justification for slavery, either in the past or in the present day?

Who has denied or said that they were unaware that it was for profit?

In terms of moral bankruptcy I agree that the slave trade was an example of that.

However,
It is widely considered morally bankrupt to make people pay for something they have not done, as it violates fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and consent.

Mollygo

KQ
I will repeat that there is no evidence that anyone (Lenny Henry) included is asking for £18 trillion in recompense.
The OP seemed to think this was the case, and others were swept up in the assumption that this was a serious consideration.

I think you seem to think it is the case too.

I think you seem to think . . . 🤣

This was in the BBC News

A UN judge says the UK is likely to owe more than £18tn in reparations for its historical role in slavery.
A report co-authored by the judge, Patrick Robinson, says the UK should pay $24tn (£18.8tn) for its slavery involvement in 14 countries.
But Mr Robinson said the sum was an "underestimation" of the damage caused by the slave trade.

Of course I understand that you might not consider either the BBC or the named judge to be a valid source of evidence.

I’m still interested to know your evidence for your accusations below.

Who are these people who have claimed that there is any justification for slavery, either in the past or in the present day?

Who has denied or said that they were unaware that it was for profit?

In terms of moral bankruptcy I agree that the slave trade was an example of that.

However,
*It is widely considered morally bankrupt to make people pay for something they have not done, as it violates fundamental principles of fairness, justice, and consent.*

Well said.

It is a report from 2023, and it was a suggestion that the UK owes £18.8 trillion in reparation.

The report was rejected by Rishi Sunak.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

Ps Now Sir Leonard Henry has a book to sell.

Allira

It is a report from 2023, and it was a suggestion that the UK owes £18.8 trillion in reparation.

The report was rejected by Rishi Sunak.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

Thankyou- that the UK may owe this sum does not mean it is going to re-paid.

The sum has been put forward mostly to demonstrate how much wealth was made as a result of this aberration, but no one is suggestion it ought to be paid back.

keepingquiet

Allira

It is a report from 2023, and it was a suggestion that the UK owes £18.8 trillion in reparation.

The report was rejected by Rishi Sunak.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66596790

Thankyou- that the UK may owe this sum does not mean it is going to re-paid.

The sum has been put forward mostly to demonstrate how much wealth was made as a result of this aberration, but no one is suggestion it ought to be paid back.

I thought I read somewhere (although I can't remember where) that that particular figure had been bandied about because it is today's equivalent of the compensation the slave owners and shareholders were paid for the loss of their possessions.

Much of the money was invested in the new industries in the nineteenth century, which were responsible for the UK's world dominance.

I don't think anybody has suggested that individuals should receive compensation. For a start, it would be impossible to decide who should get it and how much. However, it wouldn't do any harm to acknowledge the contribution the slave trade made to the British economy and still does.

However, it wouldn't do any harm to acknowledge the contribution the slave trade made to the British economy and still does.

And the fact that Britain was foremost in the abolition of the slave trade along with Denmark.

Allira

^However, it wouldn't do any harm to acknowledge the contribution the slave trade made to the British economy and still does.^

And the fact that Britain was foremost in the abolition of the slave trade along with Denmark.

True. That seems to be ignored though.

The contribution made to the British Economy is in the past and can’t be undone.
It’s important that Education about the impact of slavery is taught in school. One example is found here.
www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zc92xnb/revision/1


Interestingly, according to the BBC, not only Keir Starmer but also Rachel Reeves says the UK won’t be making financial reparations.
If Rachel says it . . .

The UK government refusal to offer monetary reparation does not imply that anyone believes slavery was acceptable.

As someone said "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there".

We can learn from the past of course.

It isn't well known that the first European nation to abolish slavery was France, by one of the Revolutionary governments.

The abolition of slavery was decreed in France by the Convention on 4 February 1794 (16 Pluviôse, Year II). It was applied in the West Indies, except in Martinique, occupied at the time by the British. On the other hand, the law did not come into force in the Indian Ocean colonies because of resistance from the landowner/colonists.

However, it was partial and slavery was eventually reinstated by Napoleon, though he had initially said he would maintain the ban

When he came to power, Napoleon Bonaparte had no intention of reversing the law of 1794. He declared this on several occasions, notably in a proclamation of 25 December 1799 to the inhabitants of Saint-Domingue: “The consuls of the Republic, in announcing the new social pact, declare that the sacred principles of liberty and the equality of the blacks will never be infringed or modified among you”.

After the reinstatement slavery continued until France banished it in 1848.

www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/napoleon-the-dark-side-napoleons-re-establishement-of-slavery-2-min-read/

And it took Britain from the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 another 26 years to abolish actual slavery in 1833. Even then, the 'Apprenticeship' scheme, which lasted for a couple of years, was really virtual slavery.

I have forebears who probably owned slaves as well as forebears who were slaves.

Evidently France is not making financial reparations for slavery, and the government has rejected calls for them, prioritising symbolic acts instead.
While France officially recognised slavery as a crime against humanity in 2001, it has consistently ruled out financial compensation, with courts also rejecting legal claims for reparations. Historically, after abolishing slavery in 1848. . .

MaizieD

I have forebears who probably owned slaves as well as forebears who were slaves.

Do you consider yourself to blame for the actions of your ancestors, or blame any of your current problems on them?

It's a difficult one, Mollygo

Threequarters of my grandparent's generation, which is where the Caribbean strain was introduced, were of solid British stock, and part of the other quarter was British stock, too.

But if you look at the way the slaves, and former slaves post abolition, were treated, it was shameful. And I can't help feeling that there was a certain amount of abandoning the former colony to its fate at independence. Not to mention the way the Windrush generation were treated (and still are to some extent) . I feel that something more concrete than an 'apology' (which was given in 2008) might be appropriate.

In your situation, I appreciate that it’s difficult to say whether you blame yourself for the actions of your ancestors or blame your current problems on their actions.

Recognition and acknowledgement that slavery was horrific and wrong is important.

Education to help people understand that it meant the buying and selling of other humans, and that it involved trade not only the people who bought slaves, but by those who sold their own people.

The concern that an apology would be seen as a basis for making further demands is one reason why many leaders are reluctant.

The posts on GN referring to their ancestors enslaved by Romans, Vikings etc. may seem frivolous, but they highlight the problem of making living people responsible for the actions of those long dead.

What about the wealthy families whose wealth is based on the 'compensation' they received for the loss of their 'property'?

Do people think that they should continue to enjoy that wealth 'because they're not responsible for the actions of their forebears?'

I don't know about all those who acquired wealth through the slave trade but Edward Colston, for instance, funded charitable projects, founded schools, hospitals, almshouses etc but his name has now been eradicated from public buildings funded with his money.

MaizieD

What about the wealthy families whose wealth is based on the 'compensation' they received for the loss of their 'property'?

Do people think that they should continue to enjoy that wealth 'because they're not responsible for the actions of their forebears?'

Regarding people as property is abhorrent. People realised that a long time ago, which was one reason, along with economics, that slavery was stopped.
Awarding people money for the loss of property is unacceptable because the property was people.

Now we insure our non-human property so that in case of loss we will receive repayment and we regard that as acceptable.

How would you solve this issue?

You mentioned that some of your ancestors were slave owners.
How would you decide which of their descendants will be responsible for making it and to whom it should be given?
Or what reparation you must make because of your ancestors?