660
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
660 points (100.0% liked)
World News
57457 readers
1107 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Here's the biggest problem with reparations...
Most slaves were captured and then sold by other africans from competing kingdoms or tribes, to the europeans who would then take them across the atlantic.
Giving reparations to current africans would actually be like rewarding the original slavers.
I think this might miss the point of reparations
I thought the point of reparations is not to "pay off" a historical wrong, but instead is meant to help offset the generational of disadvantage caused by slavery and racism to those who suffer from that legacy today
we need all kinds of changes to end cycles of poverty and generational trauma, and reparations is just one tool among many to help with that - but it's more about fixing the broken thing now than about absolving guilt
Well, sure. But a lot of developed nations already have a lot of programs aimed at doing that.
Also, as someone has said somewhere in this discussion, who exactly would receive reparations? It's not exactly an easy thing to ascertain.
yes, I do think reparations has many problems with it - ideally it would be a matter of transitioning wealth accumulated through slavery from the people who benefited from slavery to the people who suffered under slavery. We are generations away on both sides, but it's not like the effects haven't certainly enriched some while hurting others even today.
Usually when I hear about reparations, the idea is to use tax money to do it, but at that point a lot of the people paying the taxes for reparations are also the victims of generations of slavery, so ... I dunno, doesn't feel like the most targeted or ethical approach.
And yes, who do we decide who receives reparations? Is it just for slavery, or are we going to recognize the way slavery and racism are intertwined and related?
What about reparations for other racist choices, like segregating Black communities and building interstates through their communities, polluting and robbing those communities of health, wealth, etc.?
Again, reparations is just one tool. I'm not sure you can really argue that racism has been properly dealt with or solved, or that reparations has no place in a program of racial and social justice, even if we can pick out logistical difficulties.
Further, why does it feel like you are against this project of justice, rather than for it?
I'm against reparations because, as you said, it would be unfair on both sides.
The people that would be taxed (the majority) probably never benefitted from it, at least not directly. I can give you an example. On my father's side we made a family tree reaching all the way to the 17th century, and there were no rich landowners or noblemen. It's highly unlikely they owned slaves. Should my family pay for reparations?
Now, if you can accurately trace slave owning people and their descendants are still wealthy, then by all means...
What I'm saying is it can't be a blanket measure.
Also, if we europeans must pay, then the arabs better pay up as well.
And then you have the question of who receives the money. Africa is rife with corruption. I wouldn't want the money to go to some corrupt government official. But how would you trace the exact people or families who should receive the money? What if the family who was enslaved mixed with the family/tribe/kingdom of the slavers? Then what?
I'm absolutely for helping Africa, but it just can't be this fantasy notion of reparations because it's not feasible.
Hm, my point wasn't that reparations is unfair to both sides, but that there are better and worse ways to go about it.
Regardless, I think measures that aim to fix economic inequality and wealth distribution, and particularly efforts that are rooted in morally defensible arguments about repairing the harms caused by slavery and racism are noble and worthwhile. I'm even happy for imperfect versions of this where the US government pays reparations using tax money - it's a much better use of my tax money (whether I personally benefited from slavery or not) than a lot of the villainous stuff the US currently does with my tax money.
Besides, the positive outcomes are alone worthwhile.
Typically I think of reparations as being sent to those who can show their lineage goes back to African slaves in the US, in which case it's usually African-Americans who are the primary beneficiaries of reparations, not bureaucrats in Africa.
The way you are thinking about reparations makes me think you are not very keen on projects of social justice in general. Maybe you're just jaded or cynical about the possibility for justice to be handled fairly, but I think we should be motivated to supporting and finding paths forward that help people whether they are perfect or not, and I just don't get that vibe from you.
I am keen on social programs. Social welfare programs, which in fact I consider fundamental in a developed society.
I just don't see reparations as a good social program.
Programs like "we bomb the shit out of you", "climate catasthropy", "unlimited global apartheid on the world's exploited masses"?
They do have these programs but they barely scratch the surface or even contra the damage currently being done to the communities in question.
It's not exactly easy but it's not exactly impossible either. Of course, not you necessarily, someone could keep declaring it impossible to do no matter much the subject is researched.
For example, we can see that the communities effected by this have had far less investment than places that benefitted. The way to fix a severe lack of investment is through significant investment. There'll be more, of course, but that's an easy one right there.
I'm definitely not against giving more money in these programs, or widen their scope. I do think we have a moral obligation to help, in general. If you are better off, that is.
But where do reparations stop? There's hardly a place on this planet who wasn't taken advantage of, or hasn't taken advantage of another.
I mean, we've barely started. I don't think it's time to think about when we should stop. But, if we have to, it'll be when it's finished.
This is just a complete lie what the hell
Which part? That Africans captured other Africans? Definitely not a lie... Europeans didn't go to the interior. They showed up at the western coast, anchored offshore, and bought captives from mercenaries or tribal warlords who had brought conquered Africans from the interior to the coast specifically because there was a customer (horrible I know) to buy them -- the European slavers waiting in their ships. Port towns grew wealthy and powerful as the "portal" to African slaves.
Slave Ship is a good (and brutally dark) book about this.
They did show up at the shores and took slaves. Then they found out they could sell guns and arm mercenaries to do it for them for even more effective slavery. And they killed anyone who resisted them.
Just because they armed and hired middle-men to do the dirty work on the shores (and only because it was cheaper for them to do this) doesn't absolve them from being the cause these people were transported into slavery.
Next you're gonna argue slavery only started in Africa when the first europeans started doing it, completely ignoring the centuries of arab slave trade before that, and centuries after europeans outlawed it, and which likely enslaved as many people.
The truth is, it was an awful thing with a lot of different parties involved for different reasons, throughout a very long period.
Slavery had always existed. Institutionalized slavery was an exclusively European invention. Frightening how little people know about it and how much they're willing to defend it https://review.gale.com/2025/04/08/african-slavery-vs-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/
How convenient you chose to ignore the exact paragraph from that link that touched very lightly on what I said:
"In stark contrast, the trans-Saharan slave trade introduced chattel slavery where enslaved individuals were the property of their enslavers with no rights and their status was inherited by their offspring. This system stripped individuals of any agency and autonomy which reduced them to mere commodities."
Arabs enslaved millions for a much longer period of time (all the way up to the late 20th century), raped the women, neutered the men, literally denying milions of a future generation from existing.
But I don't see anyone asking them for compensations.
Strange you stopped reading there.
What is strange is how you wanted to try to pass the narrative that the europeans were the first to do chattel slavery, when they absolutely weren't, and also were the ones to not only outlaw it, but enforce the outlaw.
But keep trying to change history
Name another
You're literally the PragerU video https://youtu.be/gg1nBp8Rits
And which part of what I said is false?
Blocked
All the downvotes you got were telling you much of a child you are. This latest attitude just goes to prove it.
Block away petulant kid
You means the egyptians didnt have institutionalized slaving? Really?
Not in the same way. Even ancient Egypt considered slaves human and they had some rights, whereas trans-atlantic slavery fully reduced slaves to the level of animals. Egypt also didn't start invasions primarily to capture slaves and use them on their plantations.
While you're technically correct, trans-atlantic slavery had countries literally running their economies on slaves which is what I meant.
Whoever told you this, stop listening to them. They are not to be trusted
Every historian ever.
Well you're conflating "how it happened" with "who's to blame".
Obviously the European slave trade was the prime mover for regional African warlords capturing would-be-slaves in the interior and of course this doesn't absolve the European slavers of anything lol
I don't understand why people just knee-jerk reply like this without actually researching what they're denying. It's a pretty well-known fact that most of the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade came from African warlords and slavers (or at least I thought it was). I don't thin that's a particularly strong argument against reparations though.
Educate yourself
They were armed and trained by the West and acted as Western mercenaries. This is like blaming neo-colonialism on the countries suffering from it because the West installed a puppet government there.
"My source is I made it the fuck up" - you
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/31/epiloguetothedebateonslav
The only part of your original statement that is accurate according to your article was that they were armed by the Europeans. People actually by the European-trained raiders making up a small part of the total slave exports as stated in your provided article.
Europeans slavers being manipulative doesn't excuse the actions of those who sold them slaves, all it means is that human beings are all capable of great evil. It kind if reminds me of blockbusting in the US during the 20th century. Just because the real estate agents were playing on the racist fears of the white homeowners doesn't excuse white flight.
I do kind of take issue with the original commentor trying to handwave reparations because of this fact, but we don't need to try and whitewash (yeah I know) the actions of anyone involved.
The slavery was only possible because they were armed and agitated by the Europeans. Get out of here with your filthy victim blaming revisionism
Uhhhh
I feel like I'm just constantly doing an umm actually here because nuance seems lost on you.
Slavery was only possible because of European agitators? It existed all throughout Africa for thousands if years. In all fairness, it was nowhere near as bad as chattel slavery, and you could probably make an argument that a lot of if the africans selling the slaves didn't realize what chattel slavery entailed, but it seems like the revisionism is not happening on my side. I'm not trying to excuse European atrocities here, just call out reductionist rhetoric.
What does the article I linked say?
Pretty much exactly what I've been arguing?
You read the article and then cited a racist quote it was debunking?
They were using those 2 quotes to further drive home their point, not debunk them. It's not my fault you have awful reading comprehension
"the West" as a concept didn't exist in the 17th century.
I would say the biggest problem right now would be finding African countries that can be trusted with using this money to actually improve lives of their citizens.
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024
Some are only fairly corrupt. Most are very corrupt.
Who generated the demand?
That's an entirely different point. But they were already slavers before the europeans increased demand.