Caribbean Nations Sue for Slavery

While looking through news items, bored out of my mind, this cropped up:

[list]Fourteen Caribbean nations have resolved to sue their former colonizers — Britain, France and the Netherlands — for lingering harms that they attribute to the slave trade.

The AP reports that the leaders of the Caribbean Community, a regional consortium, adopted a 10-point plan that would seek an official apology, a cancelation of debts and assistance for cultural and educational institutions.

The regional consortium has hired British human rights firm Leigh Day to pursue the case. Leigh Day previously secured $21.5 million for Kenyans who were tortured under Britain’s colonial era government.[/list]

Source.

I don't think that any ruling will ever put right what once went wrong (That's what Scott Bakula does), but aside from this article this story went relatively unnoticed by any other news source I frequent.

What are the thoughts of others on this topic? Are these nations entitled to erasure of debt and compensation? Should there be a precedent for all wronged parties going forward? Retroactively?

I would argue that Britain already effectively made up for its involvement in the slave trade by declaring slavery illegal in the early 19th century and then using its naval power to shut down the trade. Granted, this was done for political and economic reasons, but the fact is that it was a significant effort by the country and had major results.

I can't comment on the others.

I oppose these sorts of lawsuits because they aren't about extracting justice but about broke nations trying to shore up their sinking financial situation by taking from richer nations on the basis of "historical wrongs." There's a significant campaign in Greece to sue Germany for an erasure of current debt based on the German theft of Greek assets in WW2, but it's not going to happen because Greece already accepted (admittedly low) compensation from West Germany in 1960. This is even less likely to work because unlike WW2, no one today was alive during the Trans-Atlantic slavetrade, and the governments of the nations involved (with the possible exception of the UK) are so different from the versions that participated in the slave trade that you could argue it's like suing someone because their grandfather ran over your grandfather.

All that said, I do believe that European countries should work harder to enrich and stabilize their former colonies. With all the stigma that comes with "post-colonial meddling," I think it's worse if a country completely divorces itself from the nation it helped to create by drawing up arbitrary boundaries and importing slaves.

Ideally, reparations would not come in the form of cash deposits or debt erasure but in infrastructure projects, investments, and projects to help curb corruption to give these nations what they really need: stability and a higher standard of living. If you give them money or forgive their debt, they'll just fall into debt again, but if you improve their roads, schools, and hospitals, help them stop embezzlement and waste, and invest in their local industries, they'll be able to stand on their own feet and not have to rely so much on foreign loans in the future.

Yes, I think these nations have a case.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would argue that Britain already effectively made up for its involvement in the slave trade by declaring slavery illegal in the early 19th century and then using its naval power to shut down the trade. Granted, this was done for political and economic reasons, but the fact is that it was a significant effort by the country and had major results.

I can't comment on the others.

I oppose these sorts of lawsuits because they aren't about extracting justice but about broke nations trying to shore up their sinking financial situation by taking from richer nations on the basis of "historical wrongs." There's a significant campaign in Greece to sue Germany for an erasure of current debt based on the German theft of Greek assets in WW2, but it's not going to happen because Greece already accepted (admittedly low) compensation from West Germany in 1960. This is even less likely to work because unlike WW2, no one today was alive during the Trans-Atlantic slavetrade, and the governments of the nations involved (with the possible exception of the UK) are so different from the versions that participated in the slave trade that you could argue it's like suing someone because their grandfather ran over your grandfather.

All that said, I do believe that European countries should work harder to enrich and stabilize their former colonies. With all the stigma that comes with "post-colonial meddling," I think it's worse if a country completely divorces itself from the nation it helped to create by drawing up arbitrary boundaries and importing slaves.

Ideally, reparations would not come in the form of cash deposits or debt erasure but in infrastructure projects, investments, and projects to help curb corruption to give these nations what they really need: stability and a higher standard of living. If you give them money or forgive their debt, they'll just fall into debt again, but if you improve their roads, schools, and hospitals, help them stop embezzlement and waste, and invest in their local industries, they'll be able to stand on their own feet and not have to rely so much on foreign loans in the future.

You've drawn some interesting comparisons here and have a good point on the need for infrastructure improvement and anti-corruption, instead of just cash settlements. I hadn't given this topic nearly as much thought, but I find myself agreeing with you. Suing for money isn't solving anything, and no one alive today is an offender of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Still, these former slave colonies need some support.

I guess it would be like having a child who was left alone and developed badly. It is the parent's fault for how things turned out, but the way to help the child develop further into an adult isn't by giving him a blank check; it's by helping him through the hardships to come and giving him tools to succeed. Not the best analogy, but it's all I have.

Perhaps the Brits should just transport all of the people in those nations back to Africa.

(note: the above is sarcasm)

WAY TO GO. NOW FLAMES WILL ENSUE.

Everyone's desperate for other peoples' money. It's a truism of society.

Moral reparations for something that no one living was involved in is silly. There are some long-term economic gripes that are legitimate, though, and that's what this is about. It's likely they have a plan to gain a critical mass of exposure in order to pressure the offending nations into giving money or aid for various things. Not a terrible strategy...anger is a powerful motivator.

I don't know what the success rate for these types of campaigns is, so I don't know if they're barking up the wrong tree or possibly onto something. Thanks for posting it, though.

Sure. I was surprised this flew completely under the radar.

Not to trivialize the CARICOM's history, or many of its member nations current economic woes, but this seem like a scheme being hatched simply becuase they know it will work and they need the money. The ones who genuinely care are being lead to believe either that the money they'll receive will make a difference to the people and/or it's a victory for justice, whatever that means.

The ones who don't care see an easy cash grab and a great way to market its validity.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
seek an official apology

a cancelation of debts

assistance for cultural and educational institutions.

They might get this, do doubt it though, since apologizing establishes that a wrong doing was had; therey cementing the lawsuit.

LoL, no. Won't happen. Frankly, it looks like they're extorting for a handout.

This might get a little money thrown it's way, since it's good PR for Western nations.

Originally posted by Digi
Moral reparations for something that no one living was involved in is silly.

Can I quote this on the campaign trail?

How do you address this rebuttal:

"But those living you refer to are still benefiting from that slavery and those that are the ancestors of the enslaved are still experiencing the hardships associated with their enslaved ancestors."

Originally posted by dadudemon

"But those living you refer to are still benefiting from that slavery and those that are the ancestors of the enslaved are still experiencing the hardships associated with their enslaved ancestors."

That was more or less what I would have said. I think a rebuttal can come in the form of an objection to monetary reparations, but an agreement with other ways to lessen this impact, perhaps.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Can I quote this on the campaign trail?

How do you address this rebuttal:

"But those living you refer to are still benefiting from that slavery and those that are the ancestors of the enslaved are still experiencing the hardships associated with their enslaved ancestors."

Where do you draw the line though? eg Should Egypt pay any Jewish decendant asking because it was their ancestors' blood, sweat and tears that did the slave labor long ago?

Is it also someone's fault that they happened to be born into wealth today, that was made possible by slavery long ago?

Originally posted by Robtard
Where do you draw the line though? eg Should Egypt pay any Jewish decendant asking because it was their ancestors' blood, sweat and tears that did the slave labor long ago?

Is it also someone's fault that they happened to be born into wealth that was made possibly by slavery long ago?

You could say that those people owe those slave nations money for improving their conditions over their relatives in the Motherland. If their net socio-economic status is better than their ancestral lands, then they owe the former slaver nations interest. "Reverse reparations, mother****er."

I'm just playing devil's advocate because I don't like the idea of reparations. But I also do not want to be caught off guard with a good argument.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was more or less what I would have said. I think a rebuttal can come in the form of an objection to monetary reparations, but an agreement with other ways to lessen this impact, perhaps.

Okay, that is a good response.

Going from that, the former slaver nations could offer tax incentives for teachers, doctors, and maybe businesses to open up shop and operate in those (slave) nations?

Do you think that would be more beneficial than direct cash payments?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You could say that those people owe those slave nations money for improving their conditions over their relatives in the Motherland. If their net socio-economic status is better than their ancestral lands, then they owe the former slaver nations interest. "Reverse reparations, mother****er."

I'm just playing devil's advocate because I don't like the idea of reparations. But I also do not want to be caught off guard with a good argument.

That's kinda shit, no? "If you're better off than me, then you owe me. If you're not, all is cool". That marginalizes the slavery that happened and makes it little more than a money-grab.

Same.

I don't think it has anything to do with "fault".

I don't think it is wrong for those who benefit from the way the system is set up to mitigate that somewhat perhaps by sharing or by working against some of the cogs in place to enable that detrimental treatment.

People who argue against socialism often say they are for "equal chances" not "equal outcomes", but then we have to accept that the chances are not equal on the whole for the people still suffer from the consequences of chattel slavery (and further segregation, etc.) (looking at it from a US perspective in this case)

Originally posted by Robtard
That's kinda shit, no? "If you're better off than me, then you owe me. If not, all is cool". That marginalizes the slavery that happened.

Same.

I should be forthcoming with where I got that argument from: probably the KKK. 😐 I believe they (KKK) made the argument that they improved the lives of the "Negroes" by enslaving them and bringing them here to the Americas and reparations is a preposterous idea.

So, yeah...I'm not too keen on that as a counterargument. 😐

Originally posted by Bardock42
People who argue against socialism often say they are for "equal chances" not "equal outcomes", but then we have to accept that the chances are not equal on the whole for the people still suffer from the consequences of chattel slavery (and further segregation, etc.) (looking at it from a US perspective in this case)

Yes, which is why I think the counterargument (the stuff I put in quotes) is actually a decent rebuttal against the anti-reparation argument.

Edit - I'm ready for the rage posts for what I am about to type:

Basically, I can liken this to the women's rights movement (movements?). Men are probably still benefiting from the asymmetric system that favored males and women are still probably at a disadvantage, overall, in this same system. So why could not the same thing hold true for the ancestors of slaves? How much time must pass before we can say, "Tough shit. You can't blame slavery, anymore"? I'll say this: Italian Americans are a group that has been studied and compared to African Americans because IAs were horribly discriminated against and were the lowest of the low. But they differ from the AAs in that they pushed their SEC (Socio-Ec-Stat) to a place that is now above the national average (meaning they rose from the depths and arrived at a better place than the average American). Bardock has said to me, in a previous conversation, that the IAs were able to do this because they could physically integrate into the "white-class" of Americans. I argued that Italians were singled out because of their looks and names and that that argument does not apply to the majority of them but I cannot deny that at least some IAs benefited from looking "white"; part of IAs rise to above average from the slums is their whiteness. 🙁 I read a scholarly paper on this a while back. If I don't get too lazy, maybe I can be arsed to find it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, that is a good response.

Going from that, the former slaver nations could offer tax incentives for teachers, doctors, and maybe businesses to open up shop and operate in those (slave) nations?

Do you think that would be more beneficial than direct cash payments?

Hmm, perhaps, yes, this could be seen as an extension of affirmative action ideas.

I was also more thinking of things that Omega Vision and Stealth Moose have raised earlier in this thread.

"Ideally, reparations would not come in the form of cash deposits or debt erasure but in infrastructure projects, investments, and projects to help curb corruption to give these nations what they really need: stability and a higher standard of living. If you give them money or forgive their debt, they'll just fall into debt again, but if you improve their roads, schools, and hospitals, help them stop embezzlement and waste, and invest in their local industries, they'll be able to stand on their own feet and not have to rely so much on foreign loans in the future."

There is basically two sides to look at, on the one hand the impact of colonialism and slave trade on the countries where slaves are from, and then also the impact of slave trade and developments since the slave trade in the countries where slaves were brought to.