Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Getting the descendants of the Slavers to pay anyone anything is not very likely to happen. This is the British financial empire we are talking about after all.
by recolonizing Jamaica and re-acquainting them with such quaint notions as the Rule of Law and the basics of sound economic development..
Do you really think that Jamaica was a decent place to live in 1920? Jamaicans had to escape poverty by cutting cane in Cuba, picking bananas in Costa Rica, digging the Panama Canal, and fleeing to the USA, then an openly bigoted society.
Tell that to the Native Americans on the reservations.
That they're even still around to complain is a testament to the benevolence of their conquerors. The "Native" "Americans" themselves certainly didn't spare their vanquished foes and set aside land (and privileges) for them.
Human rights violations don't have a statue of limitations. They need to pay for their white supremacy...
As much as you abhor white supremacy, you're sure keen on living in white countries and white communities. There are vast stretches of Africa that are very seldom touched by the white man and his nefarious ways, yet you prefer to stay here. Why is that? It's such a mystery.
Moderator cut: -Forget that Jamaica was just one big slave colony and the British said "hey thanks for your work guys, see ya later lol!", it's the Jamaicans who are absurd when they point out the contradictory nature of rewarding slave owners and not the slaves. I'm not even for reparations, but some of these comments are downright disgusting.
I totally agree.
FACT. The British Caribbean colonies were extremely wealthy in the 18th century, and its the income generated and the profits, which were 100% transferred to the UK, which gave that country its start. Such proceeds financed the Industrial Revolution, and allowed further expansion into India and Africa, where even MORE wealth was generated. Prior to this era the UK was a relatively poor and marginal nation.
FACT. These islands benefitted from NONE of this wealth. What social development which exists today arose from the riots of the 1930s, when a destitute population had to rebel to obtain basic rights. Even as late as 1960 the vast majority of Caribbean people DID NOT ATTENT secondary school, and in fact the FIRST university in these islands was not until 1948.
FACT. Just as Haiti was forced to compensate France for the loss if slaves, the slaves owners and NOT the slaves were compensated by the British gov't. Colonial authorities did their best to thwart attempts by the ex slaves to become economical self reliant.
While I happen to think that attempts to obtain reparations are a waste of time, to claim that there isn't a legitimate claim for reparations is NONSENSE!
The issue isn't that there isn't a legitimate basis for reparations. It is that determining who should pay, and who should benefit, becomes too complicated for the exercise to be worthy. In addition it opens a whole Pandora's Box about claims and liabilities of the historical abuse of some people by others
Ireland has a legitimate basis as well, and I suspect that THIS is the real reason why the UK doesn't want this issue to be raised.
Beautiful rant that has nothing whatsoever with what I asked
As usual, when people like you have nothing to say to contribute to the thread they revert to the usual racism card.
?
Prior to it colonizing the Caribbean, the UK was a relatively poor and marginal nation. Sugar was the white gold of the era, as it was a luxury item. It was tremendously profitable and the colonies where it was produced were fought over by the European nations.
In addition, given the demographics with 9 slaves to every white man, tremendous amounts of resources had to be poured in as a deterrent to slave rebellions.
If this islands were not so wealthy, there would NOT have been the expense to retain them, or to safeguard them against slave revolts or invasions by other European nations.
Do you know that Barbados was considered WEALTHIER than New York. That Suriname (which never became as profitable as the British or French islands) was exchanged for New York, and that was a worthy exchange.
By the 19th century Britain had exploited all it needed, and with the rise of beet sugar, sugar from cane was no longer a luxury item. The soils were worn, the slaves restive, and India was a much more profitable colony.
In addition the UK had emerged as the dominant industrial and trading/commercial power, so no longer believed in the mercantilist system.
It no longer needed sugar plantations, nor the system which was necessary to ensure that kept it alive. SLAVERY.
Please note that the UK fully abolished slavery in 1838, and France in 1848. NOTEWORTHY is that it was the two WEALTHIEST and MOST industrialized European nations which did so. Spain and Portugal, both backward, didn't abolish slavery until the 1880s!
So spare me the nonsense of the UK abolishing slavery out of the goodness of its heart. It was a battle between "old money" (the West Indian plantocracy) and "new money" (the new industrialists/commercial class) and the new money won out.
There was an anti Abolitionist movement in the USA as long as there was in the UK. It was purely commercial reasons why slavery was abolished much earlier in the UK (and in the northern states in the USA) than in the backward southern states.
As much as you abhor white supremacy, you're sure keen on living in white countries and white communities. There are vast stretches of Africa that are very seldom touched by the white man and his nefarious ways, yet you prefer to stay here. Why is that? It's such a mystery.
Based on his name, I bet he is a black American. Given that the sweat of his ancestors and the free labor that they involuntarily provided, played a huge role in building this nation, he is as entitled to live in it as are any other group of Americans.
In fact it is the distorted economies and societies which developed in the Caribbean which forced people to leave those societies. Don't babble about "going back to Africa" because those slave masters ALL OVER THE AMERICAS, did a good job in eradicating most African identities among the slaves, because they wanted to develop a self hating creature who would be more easily controlled.
If you go into a store and break something, they often make you pay for it. Ditto for the impacts of the Transatlantic slave trade.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
