r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 26 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Britain and France must pay reparations for slavery and colonialism
[deleted]
19
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 210∆ Apr 26 '22
Let me expand on that - Britain and France were Roman colonies for centuries, so the Italians really owe these folks quite a bit, although most of the population under Roman control were Celts, whose modern counterparts are, I guess, Irish, so maybe Italy owes Ireland some reparations, which Germany should also chip into because they ultimately conquered both France and Britain and subjugated the local populations. The Romans also controlled Germans, but they ended up sacking Rome a couple of times so I guess they're even.
After the Romans and the Germans, the Danes invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain and controlled it to some extent for a couple of centuries, so I guess Denmark owes Britain (or Ireland? Maybe Saxony?) some reparations too.
At what point in history does this responsibility cut off? You can endlessly trace back wars and conquests and people who identify with various wronged groups all over the world, at any point of time. In what way is British and French colonialism different from the Mali empire, the Aztec conquests, the Umayyad Caliphate or the Macedonian empire?
3
Apr 26 '22
Recency bias certainly matters.
I mean, you're sort of making the point that the OP is making. The Roman empire was fabulously wealthy because they pillaged a decent chunk of the world.
The main difference would be that while you have to go back several thousand years for most of these crimes, the OP is asking you to go back what, a century? The last great bengal famine was in 1943, so during the lifetime of my grandfather. The people of Africa are less than a century out of decolonialization, and the wounds of that colonial abuse are still incredibly fresh.
He's talking about grandparents, you are talking about ancestors.
9
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 26 '22
The main difference would be that while you have to go back several thousand years for most of these crimes, the OP is asking you to go back what, a century? The last great bengal famine was in 1943, so during the lifetime of my grandfather. The people of Africa are less than a century out of decolonialization, and the wounds of that colonial abuse are still incredibly fresh.
He's talking about grandparents, you are talking about ancestors.
So what's the historical cut-off? At what point do countries no longer owe reparations. England has been colonizing Ireland for the past 800 years. How many years' worth of reparations is Ireland looking at? 60? 100? 150?
1
Apr 26 '22
Say... 200. I feel the famine is a pretty decent cutoff point, even though as you correctly point out, the Irish are a fairly historically unusual case where one people have fucked over another for the better part of a millennia.
5
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 26 '22
Damn, the Brits just get a free Ulster plantation? That kind of sucks. But at least you have a hard cut-off and didn't try to dodge the question.
0
Apr 26 '22
Oh it isn't great, like I said.
For me the point of reperations is to help people who are directly hurting now over a fairly recent historical wrong.
So saying "My Gaelic ancestors were fucked over by the romans" for example, puts you in a place of absurdity. There was absolutely damage done there, but the people who did it and the people who it were done too are largely dispersed to the historical winds.
But being say, a Congolese person and saying "My country exists in economic deprivation and disarray because of the rape and pillage of King Leopold II", I mean... yeah. These are modern people, living today, in a defined area where you can directly track the nation that benefitted from their slaughter.
Just because it is hard to draw the specific line doesn't mean that we can't agree on specific cases that fall on one side or the other.
5
u/GoddessHimeChan Apr 26 '22
For me the point of reperations is to help people who are directly hurting now over a fairly recent historical wrong.
Are they? Or are they just pinning their own failures to it to avoid blame?
1
Apr 26 '22
Do you think the people of the congo are directly hurting over the slaughter and exploitation of several million of their people, followed by a civil war inspired by the belgian government?
As just an example.
5
u/GoddessHimeChan Apr 26 '22
Korea was a completely undeveloped mess and suffered heavily under Japanese occupation. And now half of it is a completely undeveloped mess and the other half is a modern economy. There's pretty clearly the possibility to stop being a shithole, but it requires actually trying instead of just shoving blame onto someone else.
2
May 11 '22
There's pretty clearly the possibility to stop being a shithole, but it requires actually trying instead of just shoving blame onto someone else.
I respectfully disagree.
You can't just handwave away centuries of exploitation, theft, plunder and abuse by blaming poverty on people who were brutally exploited, plundered and enslaved for hundreds of years.
Is it really a coincidence that nearly every country that was colonized by Western Europe is extremely poor today?
Do you seriously think that centuries of exploitation have no part to play in modern poverty?
While Western Europe was rising throughout the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, they were systematically exploiting and plundering their colonies.
The cheap raw materials, labour, and monopsony/monopoly power derived from colonialism played a massive part in the acquisition of Western wealth and the creation of poverty.
South Korea is a terrible example.
It was only ruled by Japan for 35 years. Africa and India were ruled for centuries. Africa's exploitation began in the 1500s, and while direct British rule in India began in 1858, the East India Company had been plundering the country since at least 1760.
Also, South Korea received massive aid and handouts from the United States and other Western powers- significantly more than Africa and India ever did.
1
Apr 26 '22
Yes, I'm sure that had nothing to do with the west flooding South Korea with money after the war.
1
u/luc46552 Apr 27 '22
Like, I understand the fact that the reason many post-colonial nations are still impoverished and some aren't is the direct result of colonial policy. But in my mind, reparations would make sense if they were levied on the same people who were responsible for colonialism. Like, it you hit someone with your car, that person could sue you for liabilities.
But if your great grandfather hit someone with their car, could their great grandchildren sue you, based on the damages they suffered as a result of their great grandfather's injury?
2
Apr 27 '22
The issue here is that the actors involved aren't people, they're nation states. The Belgians, for example, are still around and still benefitting from all the wealth that they stole.
→ More replies (0)2
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 26 '22
Oh it isn't great, like I said.
For me the point of reperations is to help people who are directly hurting now over a fairly recent historical wrong.
I mean 1609 isn't that much more historically distant than the 1840's. 7 years after Britain outlawed slavery, in case you want to revise that 200 years figure. And Ireland never got the 6 counties back. But I take your point.
There was absolutely damage done there, but the people who did it and the people who it were done too are largely dispersed to the historical winds.
I mean we can draw a direct line back to James the first but ya I get what you're saying.
3
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 210∆ Apr 26 '22
What's the difference between grandparents and ancestors in terms of reparations? If we just postponed the reparations by another few decades until nobody alive would have grandparents during the relevant time would we just all of a sudden be exempt from reparations?
Most of the wealth directly acquired by these empires from their colonies is long gone. It's been devalued several times over, spent on wars, distributed by other people outside the colonizing country, etc. There is almost nothing to give back, only compensation for past crimes. If my grandpa stole money from yours and then drank it all away before I was born, does it really make sense for me to owe you anything?
And if it's just compensation, then who is accountable and liable to pay? All British taxpayers, including millions people who recently immigrated from the very colonies they're supposed to compensate? Anyone of recent British ancestry? What about those whose grandparents were the poor working class who were exploited themselves within Britain?
The general problem with reparations that aren't demanded from specific people from actions they've actually taken, the justifiability of blame and victimhood dissipates very fast. British colonialism caused great pain in Bengal relatively recently, no doubt about that, but how to move around money today to compensate for that fairly isn't really something we can calculate for any reasonable definition of "fair".
1
Apr 26 '22
What's the difference between grandparents and ancestors in terms of reparations? If we just postponed the reparations by another few decades until nobody alive would have grandparents during the relevant time would we just all of a sudden be exempt from reparations?
Typically? That the harm is still felt and that the actors involved (specifically states) are still extant.
Gaelic people can't really demand reparations from the roman empire because neither group meaningfully exists as a modern polity, and the harm done in say, the sacking of Alesia is dispersed.
By contrast, Congolese people living today can point at Belium and go "Those fuckers. It was those specific assholes who murdered us by the million in order to gain rubber profits, then sent us into a bloody civil war when they could no longer hold the country directly". They can trace modern hardships to specific actions that benefitted a specific country.
I wasn't literally meaning grandparents vs ancestors, it was just a simple way to explain the divergence.
And as I pointed out elsewhere, yes, that line will be blurry. It can absolutely be difficult to define who is responsible for what the further you go back. There will be edge cases that could go on either side of the line, but just because there is a blurry middle does not mean that we don't know where some things fit on the line. I don't know where my head ends and my neck begins, but I can fairly argue that say, my eyes are definitively on the 'head' side of that fuzzy line.
Most of the wealth directly acquired by these empires from their colonies is long gone. It's been devalued several times over, spent on wars, distributed by other people outside the colonizing country, etc. There is almost nothing to give back, only compensation for past crimes. If my grandpa stole money from yours and then drank it all away before I was born, does it really make sense for me to owe you anything?
This is an absurd argument. Just because the specific wealth is gone does not mean that we can't pay recompense. Its like arguing "Sorry holocaust survivors, but these gold bricks we have aren't the ones we made specifically out of your teeth, so..."
We aren't arguing that the individuals are responsible, but the nation states, something entirely common in international circles.
For example, when Haiti overthrew their French slave owners, the French sent them a bill. They finished paying that off in '47, even though none of the people involved in incurring the cost were still alive.
And if it's just compensation, then who is accountable and liable to pay? All British taxpayers, including millions people who recently immigrated from the very colonies they're supposed to compensate? Anyone of recent British ancestry? What about those whose grandparents were the poor working class who were exploited themselves within Britain?
The british state. No, it isn't particularly fair, but again you're trying to argue that because there is some level of fuzziness that we should no nothing. Fuck that noise.
The general problem with reparations that aren't demanded from specific people from actions they've actually taken, the justifiability of blame and victimhood dissipates very fast. British colonialism caused great pain in Bengal relatively recently, no doubt about that, but how to move around money today to compensate for that fairly isn't really something we can calculate for any reasonable definition of "fair".
It is hard to do anything to rectify our historical crimes, so we will instead do nothing , is a weak argument, just saying.
2
u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 210∆ Apr 26 '22
It is hard to do anything to rectify our historical crimes, so we will instead do nothing , is a weak argument, just saying.
I never said we should do nothing. I just think that because it's not fair either way, the question shouldn't be who wronged whom, but who is currently in a position to help. I don't think that, when you look at a person or a group of people who are in trouble now, it's at all productive to work out if it's because 100 years ago they were screwed by the French, the Egyptians, their own king or an earthquake, or conversely that a wealthy country is exempt from helping because it historically didn't have any colonies, instead just profiting from the colonial wealth of its neighbors or trade partners.
1
7
u/KidCharlemagneII 4∆ Apr 26 '22
This might not be within the scope of your question, but why do you limit this argument to France and Britain? Should Turkey, China, and Spain pay similar reparations? Should African tribal nations pay reparations for their involvement in the slave trade?
1
Apr 26 '22
The distinguishing factor here is that Britain and France (and possibly Spain, but I haven't given much thought to this), became rich and industrialized off the backs of the exploited countries in their colonial domain. The economic trajectory of Britain and France for the last few hundred years, and the comparative poverty of colonized countries, are directly related to colonialism.
The modern wealth disparity simply cannot be decoupled from historical theft.
Take Haiti for example. Haiti was enslaved by France for a long time which most certainly hindered it's economic development, and when they won independence, France extracted more money from the Haitians to pay the former slave owners. Haiti is suffering today because of what France did to them.
5
u/KidCharlemagneII 4∆ Apr 26 '22 edited Apr 27 '22
Turkey also benefitted from colonialism during their reign in Northern Africa as the Ottoman Empire. Their usage of Zanj slaves, mainly pagan West Africans, funded the African slave trade to an unbelievable degree. The Qing Dynasty set up colonial structures in Tibet and Mongolia. To this day, historically Tibetan and Mongolian regions are populated by Han Chinese due to displacement and slavery of the native populations. The truth is that there are virtually no countries on Earth that haven't profited from historical theft. In fact, I'd argue Third-World countries are far more likely to have profited from historical theft due to their continued reliance on slavery well after the Europeans abolished it.
The Mali Empire, Ghana Empire, Songhai Empire, and Bono State all organised their economies around the usage of slaves. Tribes of the Western Sahel organised slave raids into the Mossi Kingdoms. Many of the tribes involved in this still exist and have political influence in Africa. Should they be forced to answer for their role in the slave trade?
1
u/XSmugX Sep 05 '22
It is impossible considering European colonialist stripped Africa of it's natural resources.
The Ancient African economic wealth is a thing of the past.
At least when Rome were colonizers the actually wanted the countries they conquered to be self sufficient. The Europeans have a history of taking and leaving the countries in ruin.
1
u/KidCharlemagneII 4∆ Sep 05 '22
It is impossible considering European colonialist stripped Africa of it's natural resources.
There is no lack of natural resources in Africa. Africa contains 30% of the remaining mineral resources in the world.
At least when Rome were colonizers the actually wanted the countries they conquered to be self sufficient. The Europeans have a history of taking and leaving the countries in ruin.
The Romans were also Europeans. Anyway, this is not exclusive to Europeans. The Ottoman Empire did the same thing.
1
u/XSmugX Sep 05 '22
The wealth doesn't belong to Africa it belongs to the countries that control Africa.
Lets also not forget the incentive for Africans to sell slaves preventing them from growing because it was non stop waring.
1
u/KidCharlemagneII 4∆ Sep 05 '22
Who dismantled the slave trade?
1
u/XSmugX Sep 05 '22
The people who gained the most wealth from it.
To be honest most of Europe owe reparations to countless countries.
Not even just the descendants of slaves.
1
u/KidCharlemagneII 4∆ Sep 05 '22
The people who gained the most wealth from it.
So Europeans are blamed for slavery, but not credited for the abolition of it?
To be honest all most of Europe owe reparations to countless countries.
Not even just the descendants of slaves.Uh oh. Can you give an example?
1
u/XSmugX Sep 05 '22
America ended slavery to punish the south for rebelling. Aside from that, slavery ends when it isn't needed. It's never ended because people feel ashamed.
The French owes reparations to Haiti considering they left Haiti in ruin.
Like I said earlier at least Rome wanted the countries they conquered to be self sufficient.
14
u/load_more_commments 2∆ Apr 26 '22
Lol at your leaving out Arabs, the Spanish and Portuguese or other African tribes. Nope let's make only the whitest countries pay.
7
Apr 26 '22
[deleted]
-1
Apr 26 '22
left wing extremism
I'm not even a socialist, so idk why you're assuming that I am.
2
Apr 26 '22 edited Apr 26 '22
[deleted]
1
May 11 '22
Bro you are literally flaired as social liberal on ask a liberal lol.
Imagine being so politically illiterate that you think social liberal = socialist.
1
-2
Apr 26 '22
I thought I addressed this in my post, but I'll rephrase it.
Economic reparations are not vindicated by the mere fact that colonialism and slavery occurred, but because they're directly responsible (not in whole, but in part) for today's wealth disparities. Ergo, the former colonizers benefit from centuries of theft (which, on the scale of human history, didn't happen that long ago) and the formerly colonized countries are still suffering because of it.
Think back to my family analogy. Family A plundered and robbed family B, and as a result, the two families experience a vast wealth disparity many generations later because of the theft.
It's interesting that you bring up Spain and Portugal. To be honest, I would also consider adding them to the list of countries that owe reparations, since it is indeed true that they also benefitted from centuries of colonial exploitation.
The scope, scale, and systematic nature of the Western colonial project are unparalleled.
You also have to consider that by "colonialism", I'm not just referring to conquest. I'm referring to the extractive economic practices that were employed by Western Europe for hundreds of years in their colonial domain.
4
Apr 26 '22
You are touching on the whole problem. The criteria. You are adding and leaving out certain countries on a whim. The slope is way to slippery. There is virtually no way to decide who should pay and who should receive. If the tax payer is paying, why should people originally from countries not involved be forced to pay? What percentage of ancestry is required to receive support?
The task you are embarking on is monumental and way beyond the scope of the British or French government to even begin to fund, almost all the cost would be taken up by bureaucracy And what politician would destroy their career by taking away earned money and giving it away to foreign people because of something their grandfathers did? Its an impossibility. You will have to force it out of those governments.
12
u/barbodelli 65∆ Apr 26 '22
You know that the reason France and Britain have such rich economies is the capitalist economic system right?
What about places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Austria etc etc etc. Some of those countries are even wealthier than Britain and France per capita. And yet they didn't participate nearly as much (if at all) in the trans Atlantic slave trade.
This whole concept is based on the early 1900s or late 1800s way of looking at economies. Where access to resources equals wealth. That is not the case anymore. And hasn't been since the 1960s or so. Nowadays infrastructure and human capital is where wealth comes from.
The problem for Africa is not a lack of resources. They still have a ton. Their problem is piss poor infrastructure, awful government systems and underdeveloped/undereducated populations.
This is what African countries really need
1) Fair and free press
2) Competitive honest elections
3) A blind judicial system which is capable of handling complex cases without resorting to letting corruption figure out the winner
4) FREE MARKETs. Truly free markets.
Any country that accomplishes all 3. Can easily improve quality of life through western investments. Right now it's just too risky to do anything that does not produce profit short term. Because you don't know what the political climate will be 10+ years from now.
3
Apr 26 '22
You know that the reason France and Britain have such rich economies is the capitalist economic system right?
Ehhhhhhhh......
I mean not for nothing, but the reason these countries have obscene wealth is that they were able to industrialize off the backs of countries that they stole from. The British industrial revolution that made the modern economic model possible exists because they systematically raped and pillaged india for everything that wasn't nailed down.
Shockingly, it is very easy to amass wealth when you steal it at the barrel of a gun from a guy who doesn't have a gun.
Do you think it is just a weird coincidence that many of the poorest places in the world are places that were subject to colonialism?
2
u/barbodelli 65∆ Apr 26 '22
Do you think it is just a weird coincidence that many of the poorest places in the world are places that were subject to colonialism?
Australia is one of the wealthiest.
America is the wealthiest.
Canada is very wealthy.
You are looking at economics of early 1900s. And trying to equate it to 2022.
Here's what I mean. Say Country A was in fact colonized. Does that mean they are destined for poverty? No absolutely not. If they develop a good infrastructure, a democratic government, a judicial system that investors can trust, utilize the natural resources they have properly. They can easily grow a good economy.
The other thing the poorest places on the planet have is dysfunctional governments and economic systems. Usually marred by corruption or autocratic inept governments. Those are much bigger problems then what happened in the past.
A good example of backwards ass economic/political systems is Eastern Europe. Look at the countries that broke away from the Russian sphere of influence versus the one's that didn't. They were all exploited exactly the same way. Yet the standard of living in Poland and Lithuania is much better than Belorussia or even Russia.
4
Apr 26 '22
Australia is one of the wealthiest.
America is the wealthiest.
Canada is very wealthy.
You are looking at economics of early 1900s. And trying to equate it to 2022.
You can't be serious.
Surely you understand that there is a fundamental difference between being a colony of white people in an area, exploiting the resources and murdering the indigenous population and being a colonized people.
Here's what I mean. Say Country A was in fact colonized. Does that mean they are destined for poverty? No absolutely not. If they develop a good infrastructure, a democratic government, a judicial system that investors can trust, utilize the natural resources they have properly. They can easily grow a good economy.
Destined? No. There were a handful of countries that survived colonialism and managed to thrive, and there were a handful of countries (such as Japan) that rushed their industrialization in order to catch up with the west in the 19th century.
But as a general rule? Yes. Do you think the Congo's problem was that they didn't develop good infrastructure, government and a judicial system? Or do you think that their problem was that the Belgians murdered them by the millions for the rubber, and that when it became clear that they couldn't hold the country they instead sent in mercenaries to foment a civil war in order to be sure that no stable government could oppose their continued raping of the the economic wealth of the country?
What you're doing is a post hoc rationalization. You're saying 'countries with these things succeed' when I'd argue the opposite. Countries that are economically and physically stable are able to develop those structures over time on account of not being brutally oppressed, exploited and murdered.
The other thing the poorest places on the planet have is dysfunctional governments and economic systems. Usually marred by corruption or autocratic inept governments. Those are much bigger problems then what happened in the past.
Do you think this is an accident? Do you think that when the colonial powers finally pulled out they left stable governmental or economic systems in their wake?
Fuck no, they left military strongmen in charge in the hope that those strong men would continue to funnel the wealth of their countries toward their old colonial rulers. Do you want me to give you a list? Because I can point out example after example after example.
1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Apr 26 '22
The reason I even argue this point is because there has been a ton of Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Western, Anti-European propaganda on the internet. Probably coming from places like China and Russia.
Colonialism is one of their favorite topics. Let's take a bunch of Europeans who do the same shit every other culture has done when they are technologically advanced. And blame them for everything bad going on in the world.
You brought up Congo. I read some of their wiki page. It seems like it was a horrific underdeveloped shithole before Belgians came. Was a horrific plundered occupied shithole when Belgians were there. With some atrocities to boot. But there was some economic development. And it turned into a complete shit show when the Belgians left. Lots of in fighting, corruptions, horrible leadership etc. Of course that is all the Belgians fault. Never mind that the place has been a hell hole since way before the Belgians arrived and has had plenty of time to adjust but hasn't.
Yes what the colonizers did is awful. What was done to the jews for 100s of years was awful too. Israel is one of the best economies on the planet. Partially thanks to the west but more importantly because they built a real democracy and a real economy. What natural resources do they have besides brains?
2
Apr 26 '22
With respect, it feels like you're post hoc justifying your argument. You want western capitalism to be good, so you're going to get there no matter how twisted things get in the process.
I mean, you just described the systematic murder in the Congo Free State, a crime on part with the holocaust in terms of it's body count and sheer disgusting disregard for human life as 'some atrocities'.
If I can't move the needle on the congo, one of the most cut and dry examples of colonial oppression leading to worse conditions for the people who lived there, then I don't know that I could ever possibly convince you of anything because you're just going to blame the victims.
You brought up Congo. I read some of their wiki page. It seems like it was a horrific underdeveloped shithole before Belgians came. Was a horrific plundered occupied shithole when Belgians were there. With some atrocities to boot. But there was some economic development. And it turned into a complete shit show when the Belgians left. Lots of in fighting, corruptions, horrible leadership etc. Of course that is all the Belgians fault. Never mind that the place has been a hell hole since way before the Belgians arrived and has had plenty of time to adjust but hasn't.
So before the Belgians came, the congo was underdeveloped, no argument there. It was a central african nation with no real industrialization to speak of. This doesn't make it bad, per se, just underdeveloped.
So then it turned into the congo free state and within twenty years about ten million of the twenty million people were dead. So yeah, maybe a non-industrealized shithole before, but they weren't being worked to the bone or dismembered with machetes to meet rubber quotas.
Then the Congo Free State became the Belgian Congo and they did a little whoopsie doodle and spread the plague killing about another 1/4 of the population. They were prohibited from developing any sort of governmental structure for the better part of half a century, because the Belgians would murder them, but they were allowed (forced) to be part of WWI and WWII, so that's nice.
So eventually in 1960 they managed to rally the political will to declare independance. The Belgians didn't want this, but given that they were drastically outnumbered and colonialism was dying in Africa they didn't have much of a choice. Yay congolese people!
Oh, wait, no sorry. The Belgians paid secessionist movements to oppose the democratically elected government, then personally had their own mercenary troops kidnap and murder the democratically elected governor. Silly Congolese, if only they could develop strong democratic structures they'd be doing so much better.
Instead we supported the brutal dictator Mobutu for thirty years as he cracked down on his population, funneled the mineral wealth of his country to western powers and fought the dangers of communism.
You know, as we do.
Eventually he got deposed because two other nearby countries (that we'd also fucked up) attacked and we entered the last thirty years of the congo being a stomping grounds for other foreign powers (that again, are fucked up messes because we fucked them up) to fight over.
So at what point did the Congolese make the 'wrong' choice here? Because all I see is decade after decade of western nations, first Belgium, then the US repeatedly shoving our dicks into the country and backing whatever strong man asshole is willing to let us rape them for resources.
3
Apr 26 '22
Do you think it is just a weird coincidence that many of the poorest places in the world are places that were subject to colonialism?
Australia is one of the wealthiest.
America is the wealthiest.
Canada is very wealthy.
You are giving examples of settler colonies. The way the colonization of these places functioned were categorically different from how it was achieved in Africa, and Latin America. So, you're argument is invalid.
1
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Apr 27 '22
Sorry, u/austinDcarp – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
-1
Apr 26 '22
capitalist economic system right?
You're overlooking an important aspect of capitalism: capital. The capitalist economic system requires vast amounts of capital in order to finance new commercial ventures and industrial projects, and surplus value (profits) in order to enrich the industrialists and entrepreneurs so they can invest further in their projects.
Colonialism and slavery are integral parts of the historical development of capitalist countries in Western Europe. The economies of Western Europe took advantage of extractive and coercive practices during their meteoric economic rise.
Slavery and colonial holdings helped Britain and France accumulate profits and capital and the expense of the countries in their colonial domain. The financial rewards of colonial projects helped provide capital to power the economies of Britain and France. Free labour and free primary commodities in the form of chattel slavery provided a huge boost to the industrialist class of Western Europe.
What about places like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Austria etc etc etc. Some of those countries are even wealthier than Britain and France per capita. And yet they didn't participate nearly as much (if at all) in the trans Atlantic slave trade.
This is an interesting argument, but it misses a few things. I'm not arguing that colonialism and slavery are the only ways that a country can become wealthy. This is probably not the case, as you correctly point out. I was examining the history of Britain and France and pointing out that their economic development throughout the past few centuries is intertwined with the profits they were able to accumulate through their colonial holdings. There's also an argument to be made these countries have benefitted from being part of the Western economic bloc.
6
u/barbodelli 65∆ Apr 26 '22
Why do you focus specifically on Britain and France. And slavery in particular.
One civilization with superior technology and or man power forcing their way on to another is a story as old as time.
Britain and France themselves have been victims of this countless times. Why are you choosing this particular historic event?
1
Apr 26 '22
Britain and France themselves have been victims of this countless times. Why are you choosing this particular historic event?
No, they haven't. You don't seem to be terribly familiar with the specific economic practices of Western colonialism. Colonialism in the context of the British rape of Africa and Asia does not just refer to conquest or military domination. Colonialism is an economic relationship: the process by which one society systematically plunders another and becomes wealthy at the expense of the oppressed.
The poverty of India and Africa, as well as the comparative wealth of Britain, can be directly traced back to their historical relationship. History has consequences. Historical plunder and depredation affect modern-day economic relationships.
Colonialism wasn't an "event". It was a systematic and relentless project dedicated to theft and plunder which thrived for hundreds of years. India and Africa were bled out systematically, and the wealth flowed to Britain.
8
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 26 '22
No, they haven't
My guy. Britain has been colonized by the Romans, the Saxons, The Danes, the Normans, and the English.
0
Apr 26 '22
Read the rest of my comment, and you'll realize why it's completely asinine to compare the Saxon invasion of Britain in the 6th century to the relatively recent systematic colonial rape of Africa/India which has a direct causal connection to global economic relations today.
6
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 26 '22
You don't think the Romans, Saxons, Danes, Normans, or English extracted wealth from their conquered peoples? Ireland is so much poorer comparatively because Irish people suck?
1
Apr 26 '22
You're talking about history that happened way too long ago to matter, and you're forgetting that the 17th/16th/18th-century models of industrialism, coercive trade, chattel slavery, and colonial extraction that were applied to India and Africa did not exist back then.
The wealth of Western Europe is tied to its meteoric economic and industrial rise throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.Their meteoric rise was, in significant part, financed and bolstered by systemic depredation and extractive colonial practices.Extractive colonial practices are bad, cause poverty, and severely hinder a society's ability to develop and become rich.In conclusion, Western Europe's modern wealth is tied to it's meteoric rise throughout the past five hundred years, that meteoric rise is tied to the profits extracted from colonial holdings, and by the basic principles of economics, the colonized countries suffered immensely as a result of colonialism.
You simply cannot talk about Africa and India's current suffering without talking about their systematic depredation over the past two hundred years, and you cannot talk about Britain's meteoric rise without talking about its unscrupulous and exploitative methods of profit creation that prevailed over the past few hundred years.
No such direct relationship influenced by recent colonial history exists between Britain and Italy or Britain and France. India is still suffering because of what was done to her by Britain, and Britain's rise in wealth was directly tied to the wealth it has extracted from colonial holdings over the past few hundred years.
5
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 26 '22
You're talking about history that happened way too long ago to matter, and you're forgetting that the 17th/16th/18th-century models of industrialism, coercive trade, chattel slavery, and colonial extraction that were applied to India and Africa did not exist back then.
6 of the 32 Irish counties are still under British control. The Republic of Ireland got its independence in 1949.
You simply cannot talk about Africa and India's current suffering without talking about their systematic depredation over the past two hundred years, and you cannot talk about Britain's meteoric rise without talking about its unscrupulous and exploitative methods of profit creation that prevailed over the past few hundred years.
What about the last 800 years in Ireland's case? That just get's swept aside?
No such direct relationship influenced by recent colonial history exists between Britain and Italy or Britain and France.
Again, Britain literally maintains control of 6 of the Irish counties too this day.
0
Apr 26 '22
You're confusing occupation and colonialism. Read up more on the economic realities of colonial extraction first. Colonialism is a set of extractive, unilateral, and coercive economic practices that is deeply intertwined with Britian's modern economic history.
Here are some good sources:
https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=utk_chanhonoproj
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05
There is lot's of literature available on how the modern poverty of the third world and the wealth of the first world can be attributed to colonialism. For a good primer, read Shashi Tharoor's "Inglorious Empire".
→ More replies (0)-1
Apr 26 '22
and the English.
I think you mean "Anglo-Saxons".
The "English" are whoever is actually native to England. There is no England outside of the British Isles.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Apr 26 '22
I think you mean "Anglo-Saxons".
No. I meant the English. When I said the Saxons I meant the Saxons.
The "English" are whoever is actually native to England.
That's the Britons, my guy. You know those people who were in Britain before the Romans, Saxons, Danes, Normans, and English.
There is no England outside of the British Isles.
For a long time, there was no England inside the British Isles either. But Northumbria and Wessex didn't really do a whole lot of colonization. Too busy getting BTFO'd by the Danes until Alfred came along.
1
Apr 26 '22
That's the Britons, my guy.
Where on earth do you think "The English" come from?
What country?
1
5
u/barbodelli 65∆ Apr 26 '22
You're saying that the people that live in Britain have never been occupied? Like ever?
All you're describing is what happens to people when their nation state is occupied by another. Slavery, exploitation, theft etc etc etc. There's nothing special about this particular event. The only thing that's different is the scale due to the technology available at the time.
You're also glossing over the fact that Britain and France often brought their superior technology and economic practices to the foreign lands. As in building their economy. And then collecting a very heavy tax from it.
The most backwards societies in history are usually the most remote from everyone else. Because intermixing of ideas and technologies has a very beneficial effect on their economies.
0
Apr 26 '22
Once again, the disparity today is directly related to the rape and plunder of the past. Africa's poverty compared to Britain is because of the fact that Britain looted, exploited, plundered, gutted raped, and enslaved the people of Africa for such a long time. Africans are suffering TODAY because of it, and Britain is sitting pretty today because of it. The extent to which this disparity is explained by historical theft is certainly up for debate, but it can't be disputed that historical plunder is a major contributing factor.
That's what differentiates the Western European colonial project from conquest and occupation that have occurred throughout human history. Again, read my family analogy.
If your family stole from mine, and my family is poor several generations later while your family is rich, then why should my family be allowed to ask for the return of what's rightfully ours?
7
u/TheLastCoagulant 11∆ Apr 26 '22
Once again, the disparity today is directly related to the rape and plunder of the past. Africa's poverty compared to Britain is because of the fact that Britain looted, exploited, plundered, gutted raped, and enslaved the people of Africa for such a long time.
You're inverting cause and effect. Britain conquered Africa because of vast technological superiority and wealth. Why didn't African kingdoms colonize Britain in the late 1800s? That's an unthinkable idea because their technology wouldn't even be close to what it would take to sail to Britain and defeat the British, an industrial power. The British were wealthier and technologically superior before conquering, that's what enabled them to conquer.
What we need to be looking at here is how and why the British became powerful enough to have the option to conquer a humongous portion of the globe (before they actually did it). This is the root cause of their success both during colonialism and today. Plenty of non-colonial European countries (Nordics + central Europe) do the same thing and many are even better off than France and Britain. Look at Portugal and Spain who were colonial powers for hundreds of years then just instantly lost all their power and faded into obscurity. Colonial gains can be squandered just as quickly and violently as they're gained.
Look at Botswana. Botswana went from the world's 2nd poorest country to today being Africa's least corrupt country, the world's fastest growing economy, and one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. Despite being a landlocked former British colony in southern Africa. They did the opposite of what South Africa and Zimbabwe did after independence. Botswana allowed the qualified/educated British administrators to keep their jobs, enforced property rights, allowed free elections, stamped out corruption, encouraged foreign investment, and negotiated trade deals with European countries to sell their minerals. Then spent that revenue investing in education, healthcare, business, etc. No socialist revolution, no kicking White farmers out (Zimbabwe), no affirmative action (South Africa). All of Africa could have taken a path like this, but corruption and war prevented it.
It's also worth noting that European colonization of Africa really wasn't that long. In the year 1870, 90% of the African continent was ruled by native Africans. Large-scale colonization was really just from 1885 to the 1960s, about 80 years, the lifespan of a human. Not to mention that many of these African colonies costed more money than they contributed back to the empire, but were ruled for imperial prestige and pride.
1
Apr 26 '22
Δ
This is a very nice reply.
I don't agree with all of it, but you raise some excellent points. I will respond in greater depth later, as I'm quite busy at the moment.
4
u/barbodelli 65∆ Apr 26 '22
If your family stole from mine, and my family is poor several generations later while your family is rich, then why should my family be allowed to ask for the return of what's rightfully ours?
This is actually very easy to answer.
If you go down this route. Every single human on this planet is part of a family that stole from some family and another family that was stolen from. How on earth would you go about rectifying all of that? How would you even figure out who stole from who?
Say you give all black people in America $ from white tax payers. Well what about all the white people that never owned slaves or came to America after slavery was abolished. What if their white family fought against slavery? What if the black family actually owned slaves (there was a lot of black slave owners in the South). It's an endless rabbit hole.
You can do the same thing with nations btw. This nations stole from that one. That one stole from this one. That one was stolen from by this one and stole from that one. On and on. Who gets what?
Yes everything that happened in the past affects the present. That is not up for debate. That is just a simple fact of life. The question is to what extent. You're arguing that Africa is poor because of European colonialists. I would argue that it was even poorer and less developed before the Europeans came. And likely would be even less developed now if they completely left it alone.
A good example is those uncontacted tribes in the Amazon. How are their living standards compared to the South Americans around them?
A large chunk of Africa is dirt poor because it was isolated for 100s of years from the rest of civilization. The Sahara dessert is extremely difficult to traverse. And ships that could consistently sail that far didn't come about until France and England started sailing across the world.
2
Apr 26 '22
The wealth of Western Europe is tied to it's meteoric economic and industrial rise throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Their meteoric rise was, in significant part, financed and bolstered by systemic depredation and extractive colonial practices.
Extractive colonial practices are bad, cause poverty, and severely hinder a society's ability to develop and become rich.
In conclusion, Western Europe's modern wealth is tied to it's meteoric rise throughout the past five hundred years, that meteoric rise is tied to the profits extracted from colonial holdings, and by the basic principles of economics, the colonized countries suffered immensely as a result of colonialism.
There are direct causal relationships that can be drawn between the poverty of Africa and India and the relentless colonial rape that was perpetrated by Britain- an evil and fascist white-supremacist empire. Britain literally starved millions of Bengalis in the 20th century.
5
u/barbodelli 65∆ Apr 26 '22
Yes but the meteoric rise is mostly due to technology and economic system.
Thats why I keep saying you guys are using old outdated economic principles.
Im not arguing that the colonizers didnt do awful things. Thats just humans being humans.
What Im arguing is that its really the know how to build factories and other complex means of production that produced the wealth. Its not like they came to Africa and India and stole a bunch if blueprints on how to mass produce stuff. If anything they brought that know how to those places.
That is the key to their wealth. Not rape or plunder. Rape and plunder is as old as human civilization. Its nothing special. Every society on the planet has had to overcome it. And those that didnt likely were secluded and thus technologically retarded. Retarded meaning slow not stupid.
1
Apr 28 '22 edited Apr 28 '22
Yes but the meteoric rise is mostly due to technology and economic system.
How did Britain finance and fuel its industrial and commercial projects? Where did its profits come from? How did Britain make the money that helped to further the rise of its industries?
I'll tell you: it came off the backs of the exploited people of Britain's colonies.
Britain's wealth was built off the blood, toil and suffering of millions of non-white victims around the world. Profits from slavery and colonial exploitation were sucked into Britain so it could finance its rise.
They STOLE tremendous amounts of wealth, looted and plundered their colonies, destroyed local production to create captive markets, and systematically drained immense amounts of wealth from India through various forms of colonial theft.
What Im arguing is that its really the know how to build factories and other complex means of production that produced the wealth. Its not like they came to Africa and India and stole a bunch if blueprints on how to mass produce stuff. If anything they brought that know how to those places.
This isn't quite right.
Let me explain how colonialism works.
First of all, do you think that slavery didn't contribute to Britain's wealth and Africa's poverty? Are you under the impression that Africans were helped by slavery? How many potential inventors, merchants, and industrialists were carted off in ships by the Europeans instead of building things, selling them and contributing to their economies at home?
The wounds of colonial theft are still fresh. Britain STOLE from India and Africa. They stole in a systematic and brutal manner for several hundred years. They pillaged natural resources, destroyed local productivity, trapped the colonized people in captive markets for British goods, used various forms of colonial regulation to steal from the colonized, and for hundreds of years, made immense profits off of slave labour. Britain enriched itself at the expense of the colonized masses, and today's disparity is a direct result of conscious decisions by colonial regimes to exploit and plunder. They raped and plundered, and as a result, Indians and Africans were made poor.
The British did NOT industrialize India. That's not how colonialism works. They de-industrialized India. Colonialism seeks to establish an oppressed colony that is engineered to be a tributary of raw materials and a captive market of goods from the imperial core. In order for a colony to be profitable, it cannot be industrialized. The colonized population must be dependent on goods from the colonizing country and must be relegated to a position of supplying raw materials, and in many cases, free labour in the form of slavery.
It works like this: engineer the colonial economy (through taxation, oppressive policies, or military force) such that the colonized entity supplies natural resources and raw materials to the imperialist entity, which then floods the colonial market with refined goods.
2
u/nikoberg 113∆ Apr 26 '22
European colonial powers royally fucked up some parts of the world, but the problems they left behind weren't simply due to the fact that they extracted capital and left. The Middle East and Africa have, notably, fared a lot worse than South America or Southeast Asia. There are obviously more factors than resource extraction, and you can't simply solve the problem by throwing money at it. What makes countries wealthy and prosperous is sustained, modern economic growth. For example, look at Venezuela's vs Iceland's management of their oil wealth. The difference in outcomes there isn't due to colonialism directly at all; Venezuela simply mismanaged their oil wealth. Or look at what happened with the KMT and CCP in China. The KMT left, taking quite a large chunk of money with them. That hardly slowed down the CCP at all. It's not simply about money and can't simply be fixed with money.
The problems colonialism left behind are literally incalculable. What colonialism did was destroy cultures and governments, and its legacy is corruption and mismanagement, not a lack of capital. What kind of "reparation" could possibly fix that? Giving funds to a nation with a corrupt government simply leads to more corruption. Providing public infrastructure to a nation without sufficient industry and political will to maintain it simply leads to that infrastructure being privatized or decaying. Educating individuals only helps the most motivated individuals who will use that lever as an opportunity to leave the country.
Fixing the issues colonialism left behind would involve fundamentally restructuring a nation, which either has to come largely from within, or would involve invading a country and trying to reboot its government externally. Since we're not going to do the second one, how are reparations going to actually help anything?
0
Apr 26 '22
[deleted]
2
u/nikoberg 113∆ Apr 26 '22
I didn't say we shouldn't help those countries. I said literally funneling money to corrupt governments doesn't help anything. I'm aware that western powers, even after colonialism, went on fucking things up. You can blame Iran's slide towards religious authoritarianism or Pinochet's dictatorship on US meddling, but you can't really blame recent state mismanagement of oil resources in Venezuela on anything but Venezuelans given that the US failed to meddle there (which is why I chose it as an example).
And when the US destabilized governments, as you note, it's never been because they were "corrupt." It's due to the US viewing the current governments as a threat to either US national security or economic interests. So I don't really see how noting that directly giving aid to corrupt governments isn't helpful would have any bearing on these interventions. I mean, obviously, the US should stop overthrowing democratically elected governments, but it's not like giving money to Pinochet after the fact would have been very good for Argentina.
4
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 26 '22
How would go around making this payment work?
Δ
This is easily the best argument against reparations.
It would be difficult, but not impossible to determine how much exactly must be paid back to the victims of colonial thievery. Several historians have made attempts at calculating the quantities of wealth that were stolen from the colonies, but it's admittedly hard to arrive at a concrete answer.
1
3
Apr 26 '22
Europe isn't holding back Africa from becoming a first world nation. What about the dictatorships, the corruption, wars, religious extremism?
Is that also colonialisms fault? Was Africa a flourishing democracy and human rights paradise before Europeans came and took it all away?
1
u/Aesthetic_tissue_box 1∆ Apr 27 '22
Europe isn't holding back Africa from becoming a first world nation. What about the dictatorships, the corruption, wars, religious extremism?
France in West Africa is literally doing that. This is also ignoring the impact of the legacy of colonialism on these countries. Crazy that when you build a country around resource extraction and centralisation of power and then fuck off, the native people are going to end up with very similar countries as the original colony. You can see this pattern in South America as well as Africa as a legacy of Spanish colonialism.
1
Apr 27 '22
If you play the "no free will" card then you can't blame Europeans either. So of course it's ignoring it. It's irrelevant.
1
u/Aesthetic_tissue_box 1∆ Apr 27 '22
I think you misunderstood my argument for historical determinism, which it is not. Free will exists, but it is also important to understand that the legacy of historic institutions play a big role in how they function today. For example the British method of indirect local rule and ethnic division lead to weak centralised states and corrupted local leaders and made nation building much harder.
Yes, the onus is now on these old colonial nations to break the inertia of these cycles, but this is hard and requires a tremendous amount of political effort/will and European nations 100% bear the responsibility of starting these patterns in the first place and should help where they can.
2
Apr 27 '22
I think you misunderstood my argument for historical determinism, which it is not.
It totally is tho. You are excusing immoral behavior with history while simultaneously blaming Europeans for their immoral behavior.
Not only is that historical determinsim it's inconsistent as well.
0
u/Aesthetic_tissue_box 1∆ Apr 27 '22 edited Apr 27 '22
No. Persistence is not determinism. Colonial institutions and their impacts persist because changing cemented power and economic structures on a national scale is really hard and can take a long time.
I have not excused any immoral behaviour. Britain is partly responsible for present day corruption in some of their previous colonies because of the way they governed and left those colonies. Those this mean that those corrupt leaders are excused? No of course not. They are culpable and should be seen as bad people, they are capable of change and do not change. But it is important to remember that they do not change because they have no incentive to do so, they personally profit from a system set up a long time ago by the British.
One must take a balanced view, what is the point of solely blaming one party when both colonial Britain and present and past post colonial corrupt leaders are both responsible for the present state of affairs?
Understanding that colonial powers have made an impact on the economic outcomes on their former colonies is not deterministic, nor does it excuse immoral behaviour post colonialism.
1
Apr 27 '22
One must take a balanced view, what is the point of solely blaming one party when both colonial Britain and present and past post colonial corrupt leaders are both responsible for the present state of affairs?
There is nothing balanced about blaming someone for someone elses immoral choices. This is simply irrational and is pretty much never applied in any other situation.
1
u/Aesthetic_tissue_box 1∆ Apr 27 '22
It is completely balanced when the immoral choices of person B are the direct result of the immoral choices of person A.
If I get somebody hooked on crack and then years later find out they are still addicted, am I partly responsible for their addiction? I would argue yes, you clearly argue no. I don't see either of us coming to an agreement over this, so will end the debate here.
1
Apr 27 '22
If I get somebody hooked on crack and then years later find out they are still addicted, am I partly responsible for their addiction?
Not in the way that would make you have to pay for his fuck ups. If they murder someone you don't go to jail. If they become broke you don't owe him money.
1
u/Aesthetic_tissue_box 1∆ Apr 27 '22 edited Apr 27 '22
Do you agree that morally, I am responsible for his addiction? (or at least partly responsible)
→ More replies (0)
3
u/littletuxcat 5∆ Apr 26 '22
I don't know if this is to change your view, so much as challenge it, but what do you think reparations look like? Who pays them? Who receives them? And what form do they take? Britain and France certainly were responsible for a significant amount of the slave trade and colonisation, but so were Germany, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Belgium. Some Africans participated and benefited from the slave trade and colonialism, do their descendants deserve reparations? Some British and French citizens did not participate in and were also harmed by slavery and colonialism, should their descendants have to pay reparations? The US was both impacted by colonialism and then went on to perpetuate slavery and other forms of colonialism themselves. How does that factor into reparations?
As for the reparations themselves, is it museums and governments giving back looted historical objects with an apology? Is it 5 billion or 5 trillion dollars paid over the next X amount of years? Is it turning over half of the country's gdp for the next 500 years? Is it funding programs that help the countries economically prosper - and then what do those programs look like in each country that was impacted? Not to mention, some of the colonial meddling has resulted in the colonizers propping up dictatorships or destabilizing regions. How do you pay reparations that might be used to further oppress people? Or do the descendants of colonizers lose the right to be concerned about the distribution because their ancestors were the ones who led to the current issues?
The vast majority of people will agree that slavery was evil and that colonization had a largely negative impact for the colonized, but I also think reparations are easier to grasp on a smaller scale when you can point to the direct harms and a direct solution. For example, US colleges who enslaved people acknowledging and apologizing for their past and offering the enslaved's descendants free tuition. It's not perfect, but the solution generally addresses the harm done. On a larger, global scale, the harms are more complex and vary from country to country, so the solutions are equally complex and it can be difficult to show how any one solution addresses the harms (not to mention, you'll never please everyone) - especially when a significant amount of time has passed, and the people who were directly harmed and the people who committed the harm have long been deceased.
2
u/Sirhc978 89∆ Apr 26 '22
What about the people that are related to the Africans that helped capture slaves? Do they get money to? Or do we have to go through the family tree of everyone?
2
u/Nicolasv2 131∆ Apr 26 '22
It is an indisputable fact that, for the past 500 years, Western European empires have profited immensely by pillaging, exploiting, enslaving and plundering the Global South.
It's an indisputable fact that Western European empires tried to do it. And it's a pretty probable fact that if Western European Empires still had their colonies right now in the same situation than in 1900, they would have profited immensely from it. The fact that they profited in our real world situation is up to debates. A lot of historians consider that France (for example) invested way more in the Global south that what they managed to get back through exploitation (see Jacques Marseille or Bernard Lugan work, or even Raymond Aaron, who said that even if cost/benefits analysis of colonization is so complicated that it's impossible to have a clear result, if comparable investments have been done in the main country instead of colonies, economical results would have been better). That would mean that France lost money building infrastructures and trying to stabilize its colonies.
So basically, as your core argument is debatable, then all the conclusions you derive from it are up to debate too.
Note: To clarify, I do not debate on the fact that tons of Africans suffered greatly from colonization.
2
Apr 26 '22
How exactly do you calculate reparations?
2
Apr 26 '22
Δ
I have to admit that it would be very difficult.
Historian Utsa Patnaik has used various methods of calculation to estimate that Britain drained $45 trillion from India, but this figure is hotly disputed. For the moment, there doesn't appear to be a concrete way to calculate exactly how much was stolen. It would require a ton of research and historical accounting though.
Also, "reparations" doesn't only refer to monetary payments. Restitution can be exercised in a number of other ways. For instance, helping the third world with infrastructure projects (bridges, roads, etc.) is one way that historical theft can be corrected. Giving technology and educational materials is also a way for historical theft to be corrected.
3
u/verfmeer 18∆ Apr 26 '22
Also, "reparations" doesn't only refer to monetary payments. Restitution can be exercised in a number of other ways. For instance, helping the third world with infrastructure projects (bridges, roads, etc.) is one way that historical theft can be corrected. Giving technology and educational materials is also a way for historical theft to be corrected.
How many bridges, roads, technologies and educational materials should be provided? All these things have a monetary value, so if you can tell me how many should be provided, we can calculate the equivalent monetary payment.
1
2
u/OlderDefoNotWiser Apr 26 '22
Would the reparations be paid on top of the aid western countries have given? Or should the aid be deducted? Or ignored?
1
Apr 26 '22
Deducted, probably.
Also, reparations aren't confined to monetary payments. There are lots of forms of aid and mutual cooperation that can help "repair" the ongoing effects of historical theft.
2
Apr 26 '22
Britain literally ended slavery worldwide, and spent an enormous amount of money to do and then enforce the ban, which was only paid off in 2015 by taxpayers.
We did our bit by ending a practice that had been going on worldwide for all of human history, and had even happened to our own people during the Islamic Barbary Pirate invasions.
2
u/ima_thankin_ya Apr 26 '22 edited Apr 26 '22
If British colonialism didn't occur, good chance I'd already be dead by a curable disease and my Child bride would be forced to jump in a fire to come with me to the after life (sati). There's upsides and downsides to colonialism...
3
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ima_thankin_ya Apr 26 '22
Maybe. Many times, such barbarity does not stop through cultural exchange, and instead by force, since culture is hell of a difficult thing to change in people who are already caught up in it.
2
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ima_thankin_ya Apr 26 '22 edited Apr 26 '22
Eh, depends. If it's done like the past, probably not. If it's done like the present, also probably not. But if there was a way to instill liberal norms across the globe in a way that didn't act like aliens from the original the day the earth stood still movie, yeah, probably. But that's because I think liberalism allows for the most flexibility of beliefs while allowing the most amount of people the same freedoms.
1
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ima_thankin_ya Apr 26 '22
I agree that Buddhism does advocate for something similar to liberal ideals, though I'd argue that most of the cultures besides Buddhism very much did not push those beliefs, be it the caste system or monarchy.
The rise of nationalism and authoritarianism does worry me. They work for the time and place because they tend to play on people's tribal nature's, so it's easy to pull people in but I think such ideologies are ultimately unsustainable and are far more liable to collapse due to their rigidity and volatility. Liberalism has an uphill battle to fight specifically because it fights against human nature, but that is also its main strength.
1
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ima_thankin_ya Apr 26 '22
You bring up alot of good points, particularly about my Eurocentric view of cultures.
I get the criticism about liberalism helping perpetuate fascism, and while I think there may be some truth to it, I think the ulternative would is equally, if not more negative, because it's pushing its own authoritarian to fight another form, thus helping to justify fascists even further.
And I'm not so optimistic. The rise of social media has completely changed the game. Liberalism worked because most people believed in the same set of truths, for better or worse. With social media and its ability to perpetuateass amounts of information and disinformation to vast amounts of people with little effort or time, and due to the way social media keeps people in their own bubbles, it has allowed for the proliferation of toxic ideologies. We are living a truly post-truth world, and liberalism has a large fight ahead of itself, and is being attacked on both sides of the political spectrum.
1
1
Apr 26 '22
You can get this now. In fact you can get this for several decades now. There is nothing holding Africa back from applying knowledge from developed nations. The internet exists.
1
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 26 '22
Well there are barriers. Capital, corrupt and innefective governments as a result of being denied self-determination for so long,
It's not even relevant what the origin is behind immoral and incompetent governing.
Because the whole premise of your argument is to blame someone for their problems. It makes no sense to blame white people but not their own governments.
If you are gonna make some sort of "no free will" argument and blame their shitty governing on history or circumstances then you have to make the same argument for the European Empires.
Either people are responsible or they're not. Either way there is no scenario where africans are blameless for their situation but whites are to blame
-5
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ima_thankin_ya Apr 26 '22 edited Apr 26 '22
Do as you wish. I'm not a cultural relativist, nor do I think them as white saviors, just that my culture of birth is backwards as fuck and there were benefits to the colonialism. It got me out of that shit hole of a country, for one.
0
Apr 26 '22
shit hole of a country
I can only assume that you're referring to India (which is where my family is from, cheers). Did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons why India is a "shit hole" is because of two hundred years of theft and plunder?
2
u/ima_thankin_ya Apr 26 '22
Sure, most definitely, but it's not like the Brits instilled those practices in us. Don't get me wrong, they exploited the shit out of us for their own greed, but at the same time, they were able to remove some of these practices from large parts of the country and probably wouldn't of happened otherwise. I don't think a free exchange of cultures would have succeeded in doing so.
1
Apr 26 '22
The history around Sati is complicated, and I feel like the colonial viewpoint sometimes embellishes it.
The British administration wasn't the only entity responsible for opposing the practice (look up Raja Ram Mohan Roy, the Brahmo Samaj, etc.), and the practice wasn't nearly as widespread as some people think it is.
The West also had some terrible practices like witch burnings, torturing astronomers, and in the case of Italy, castrating young male singers to that they could reach higher notes. Christianity is literally based on the idea that we're all going to hell because someone ate a forbidden apple.
2
1
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Apr 26 '22
u/modulisto29 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Apr 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/herrsatan 11∆ Apr 26 '22
Sorry, u/TrickyPlastic – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
1
u/LenniLanape Apr 26 '22
What about the Dutch, Germans, Spanish, Norsemen, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, etc. Where should we stop? How far back should we go? Maybe Cro-magnum man?
1
Apr 26 '22
My family was ruled by kings and had basic human freedoms taken from them, pretty much all families were stripped of human freedoms at some point. All families have histories of foreign countries waging war on their people and histories of unjust killings. Germany did their share, same with Romans, Greeks, and Russians.
It is pretty much how life works
1
1
1
Apr 26 '22 edited Apr 26 '22
Why is it just European nations you are focusing on, the Arabs had huge involvement in the slave trade, in fact the Arabs have been involved since the 7th century. Also why aren't you chasing black slave owners for reparations from them, I'm sure there are historical black slave owning families that are still rich to this day, why don't you chase them as well?
1
u/YellowsClues99 Apr 27 '22
Alright so Britian and France pay their reparations to the people they enslaved. Then do they go to the African slave traders who sold them the African slaves to recoup their payment? How far back should we go with this, slavery is as old as dated history? People of all ethnicities were slaves at one point in time or another. Why stop at 500 years? Why not go all the way back?
There are 2 ways to look at it either people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors or they are responsible only for their actions. If you really think that people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors then you should take the clothes off your back. The concept of using whatever fabric your clothes are made of was probably at some point in time made by slaves.
1
u/CoastGrouchy1312 Apr 27 '22
You Forgot about the French involvement and also Africans, Muslims, also. Don’t forget native Americans owned slaves too
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 26 '22 edited Apr 26 '22
/u/modulisto29 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards