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.)

  • faintwhenfree@lemmus.orgEnglish
    1011·
    1 year ago

    I understand what Britain did was wrong and requires corrective measures, but personally I just think financial reparation is not a very bright idea. For

    1. How do you ensure the money actually goes to victims in foreign countries
    2. If its given to their govts, what assurances UK has it’ll be used to improvement of victim’s life
    3. It can very well be used to fill the pockets of rich politician
    4. Even if ignoring all three, UK gets money in hand of ech victim personally, still doesn’t help the fundamental problem of marginalised community, money will run out so far in their hands, they’ll have no real impact.

    I my opinion a 100 fully paid scholarships to university specifically for victims is a way better way to help them then just handing cash.

    • Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world
      103·
      1 year ago

      Now explain how you came up with 100 as a good number of scholarships before defining the word “victim” to not apply to anyone currently alive.

      • faintwhenfree@lemmus.orgEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        One I meant to say 1000 and two I meant to give a random number not a speicifc number. I’m not qualified enough to do that kind of assessment. But handing cash to solve one particular injustice rarely solves problems across the world.

        Also defining victim would be a bigger Challange as well. I’m not saying I have all the solution, I’m just saying giving scholarships of value of whatever amt smarter people have agreed is what UK should pay for their past, is objectivly better than handing out cash.