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.)
Removed by mod
I wouldn’t say poorly, if your kids need a few new things for school, is that money really spent poorly? Most people know better, but they can’t spend it on anything else, than the things they need at the moment. You can’t save/invest money if you are starving.
Removed by mod
It is so weird to me you can somewhat accurately describe the issues that still exist today related to slavery and then just “but I don’t think we should give em the money because they probably wouldn’t spend it responsibly”. What a wild assumption. Why don’t we let the descendents of slaves have the money and figure out what to do with it instead of taking the attitude of “we know how to spend it better than they do so we should keep it and just fix things ourselves”? Do you really think that they wouldn’t have the desire to invest it in things like education and lifting up their communities?
Hopefully what they meant is giving relatively disadvantaged people some cash doesn’t really help. In other words, nothing to do with race specifically.
There’s a decent body of research indicating cash transfers actually are as effective as in-kind charity (often found to be even more efficient). With more recently neuance being added hinting at when one or the other is better at achieving long-term benefits. This is the basis behind charities like Give Directly. If you’re interested in some background:
Randomized trial of cash compared to food welfare in Mexico: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.6.2.195
OECD counties comparing cash transfers to expanded childcare and education: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/money-or-kindergarten-distributive-effects-of-cash-versus-in-kind-family-transfers-for-young-children_5k92vxbgpmnt-en#page5
India based comparison, noting the effectiveness and perception of the in-kind charity impacts long term results (e.g. social stigma of receiving food charity): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919214000499
Any assumption that direct cash payments will be misspent as a reason to prefer in-kind welfare isn’t justified IMO. Benefits are fungible. Any money saved on food / childcare / whatever will be respent either efficiently (or not) in similar proportions to the direct money welfare… But administrative costs and externalities with in-kind transfers tend to make them less efficient on average.
I don’t really agree with that either. Organized collective spending would be better but giving people some cash does generally help. For every one person that would use it irresponsibly there are 100 people that would just pay bills and buy essentials, and that is helpful.
That’s just a normal disagreement, though. Right?
Maybe. I wouldn’t personally argue it doesn’t help at all, but I also don’t feel like it’s that likely to be the most effective use of resources. I don’t have any issue with that approach in principle, just to be clear. I’m 100% in favor of whatever approach does the most good.
Idk what you mean by normal disagreement, but I have no intention of being hostile about this if that is what you mean?
This is kinda my overall point: worrying too much about the money being used “correctly” or “efficiently” above all else is a misdirection to keep the debate stagnated, and keep the issue of actually making reparations indefinitely in the future. The conversation of how the money can/will/should be spent isn’t a conversation that the countries that got rich off of slavery should be having, it is a discussion that the descendants of slaves should be having. Trying to make the decisions for them is just more of the same fucked up “we should be in charge of them for their own good” mentality.
Ah, that’s not what I meant. Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to where you originally said:
If the parent post was talking about “those people” as in a specific race, then the problem would be that person was being racist. So calling out a post for racist statements or overtones is different from just a normal disagreement about the best way to accomplish something. See what I mean?
quick edit:
“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.” — I agree. I think we should try to identify the best way to use resources to help most effectively, but certainly not to the extent we’re just paralyzed and don’t do anything.
Hmm… An argument could possibly be made that that was some sort of racism, but it probably would be subconscious, unintentional, “supporting the system” kindof racism. In my experience, trying to call that out as racism directly just gets people all worked up arguing about what defines racism, and it is better to just try and make direct arguments about the topic at hand than open that can of worms every time.
Obviously this isn’t a very consistent rule, just a general thing I’ve noticed. Many times calling something out as racism is necessary for the conversation to be productive.
To put it a slightly different way, if the original person said “those people (black people, for example) can’t be trusted to use the money responsibly, we need to manage it for them” then criticizing that would basically be criticizing the person for being racist. I’m not saying you were rude or even very direct. I’m just saying that kind of criticism or counterargument is a different type than “I think method A is more effective than method B”. The latter is just about practical stuff and doesn’t touch on moral issues like racism.
Anyway, the way I interpreted your first post was arguing against that first type of problem. It’s very possible I misinterpreted both of you but hopefully why I said what I did makes more sense now.
Removed by mod
Thats an overgeneralization. Some white peoples were enslaved while not all black peoples were slaves. The question is more complex than presented.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you know that white people were indentured servants. While the conditions were just as bad as the slaves, indentured servitude was for a finite amount of time, while slavery was for life. This allowed the white people a chance to rebuild wealth and their children did not have to experience their parents’ conditions. Slaves never had that chance.
It depends on country. There were countries where indentured servitude was for entire life, except for cases when a landlord freed a serf or a serf bought own freedom. Landlords could buy, sell and judge serfs. Example: Russian Empire, where serfs had no rights.
I thought we were talking about the Transatlantic slave trade in the Americas?
Somehow it turned into blacks vs whites, which is not ok for me.
There were multi-generation serfs and indentured labour in the British isles. There were also slaves taken from the isles, though a very long time before then.