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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • DogMuffins
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, but the few dollars per slave that a trader would have received is nothing in comparison to the value a slave would generate through their lifetime.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Compensation is based on damages, not on how much money the crime made. People routinely owe damages for assault or vandalism that makes them no money.

      • DogMuffins
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You may have misunderstood me. By removing someone from their home nation, the damages would be the value they would have produced in their home nation.