Slavery Reparations.
Discussion
55palfers said:
It's time them Romans coughed up too.
They brought a slave culture to this country. There was slavery before, but the Roman one was more institutionalised. 1,000 (or so - for the pedants among us) years later the Norse men came and brought slavery to a new level.
Slavery was the norm.
What is not often acknowledged is that the slave traders were just that; traders. This does not excuse their conduct in any way of course, but it does mean that those they bought were normally already slaves.
After all, slavery was the norm.
Slavery was found not to be legal in England/Wales (Ireland?) in a court, the Somersetts case in the 1770s, and thousands of slaves were released. It took circa 50 years for it to be banned in the British Empire.
This was quite a dramatic move, and one that, as a nation, we should mention every now and again.
There is a suggestion that the English, sometimes British, all benefited from the slave trade. This is difficult to balance with the state of the majority of the population at the time. If you read (as I was forced to) Cobbett's Rural Rides you will appreciate the dire situation of the peasants in the early 19thC. Just like today, any suggestion of riches cascading to the lower classes is unevidenced. It's the norm.
I think the slave trade was reprehensible. It formed the basis of the riches that a few families enjoyed in the 18th and 19thC, but mine wasn't one of them. The odds are greatly for them not being yours either. I feel no vicarious liability of something that happened, and stopped happening, nearly 200 years ago.
I don't blame the current Germans for WWI and WWII. I would appreciate the same consideration.
On the subject of reparations:
"WARSAW (Reuters) - Germany could owe Poland more than $850 billion in reparations for damages it incurred during World War Two and the brutal Nazi occupation, a senior ruling party lawmaker said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-germany-...
If we went back in time and put right all the wrong in history there wouldn't be enough money in the world to compensate everyone.
"WARSAW (Reuters) - Germany could owe Poland more than $850 billion in reparations for damages it incurred during World War Two and the brutal Nazi occupation, a senior ruling party lawmaker said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-germany-...
If we went back in time and put right all the wrong in history there wouldn't be enough money in the world to compensate everyone.
BlackLabel said:
On the subject of reparations:
"WARSAW (Reuters) - Germany could owe Poland more than $850 billion in reparations for damages it incurred during World War Two and the brutal Nazi occupation, a senior ruling party lawmaker said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-germany-...
If we went back in time and put right all the wrong in history there wouldn't be enough money in the world to compensate everyone.
They might have a case if there was any money left in Germany at the end of the war, but it was bankrupt. Fair enough, Krupp might, you know, just might, have had some stashed away somewhere. I remember my father, who had a German friend just after the war, and was of a mind to forgive but not forget, was more than a little miffed at the state funeral of an arms manufacturer who had used slave labour, and made fabulous sums out of it. Whilst he was, supposedly, reduced to poverty at the end of the war, the Americans felt that reparations should be paid to him. Unbelievable. He was a war criminal but was given free money to start his factories again. I wonder if they apologised for bombing them."WARSAW (Reuters) - Germany could owe Poland more than $850 billion in reparations for damages it incurred during World War Two and the brutal Nazi occupation, a senior ruling party lawmaker said."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-germany-...
If we went back in time and put right all the wrong in history there wouldn't be enough money in the world to compensate everyone.
Krupp no doubt felt he was entitled to the money, but didn't think that many/most of the slaves in his factories deserved a share. So he kept it all to himself.
You can't right wrongs with money. As you suggest, history has a lot in it about wrongs committed by one group against another. However, the persons involved in crime should be punished according to the law. Their kids, as long as they were not complicit, should be allowed to go about their business unaffected.
Derek Smith said:
They might have a case if there was any money left in Germany at the end of the war, but it was bankrupt. Fair enough, Krupp might, you know, just might, have had some stashed away somewhere. I remember my father, who had a German friend just after the war, and was of a mind to forgive but not forget, was more than a little miffed at the state funeral of an arms manufacturer who had used slave labour, and made fabulous sums out of it. Whilst he was, supposedly, reduced to poverty at the end of the war, the Americans felt that reparations should be paid to him. Unbelievable. He was a war criminal but was given free money to start his factories again. I wonder if they apologised for bombing them.
Krupp no doubt felt he was entitled to the money, but didn't think that many/most of the slaves in his factories deserved a share. So he kept it all to himself.
You can't right wrongs with money. As you suggest, history has a lot in it about wrongs committed by one group against another. However, the persons involved in crime should be punished according to the law. Their kids, as long as they were not complicit, should be allowed to go about their business unaffected.
Germany as a country may well have been broke after World War II (I haven't studied this)Krupp no doubt felt he was entitled to the money, but didn't think that many/most of the slaves in his factories deserved a share. So he kept it all to himself.
You can't right wrongs with money. As you suggest, history has a lot in it about wrongs committed by one group against another. However, the persons involved in crime should be punished according to the law. Their kids, as long as they were not complicit, should be allowed to go about their business unaffected.
What about those German companies that made vast ammounts of money during the war?
Here is a quick read https://listverse.com/2013/10/24/10-big-business-n...
I have been meaning to delve deeper into BMW's dealings, several years ago I read about BMW being able to ride any storm
Greece is now officially pushing for reparations and rightly so https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/21/gree...
It is far too easy for those that live in countries that weren't occupied by the Nazi's to mention "the past is the past, lets move on"
This is the problem - Ignorance plays its part
Who paid to rebuild Germany?
Penelope Stopit said:
Derek Smith said:
They might have a case if there was any money left in Germany at the end of the war, but it was bankrupt. Fair enough, Krupp might, you know, just might, have had some stashed away somewhere. I remember my father, who had a German friend just after the war, and was of a mind to forgive but not forget, was more than a little miffed at the state funeral of an arms manufacturer who had used slave labour, and made fabulous sums out of it. Whilst he was, supposedly, reduced to poverty at the end of the war, the Americans felt that reparations should be paid to him. Unbelievable. He was a war criminal but was given free money to start his factories again. I wonder if they apologised for bombing them.
Krupp no doubt felt he was entitled to the money, but didn't think that many/most of the slaves in his factories deserved a share. So he kept it all to himself.
You can't right wrongs with money. As you suggest, history has a lot in it about wrongs committed by one group against another. However, the persons involved in crime should be punished according to the law. Their kids, as long as they were not complicit, should be allowed to go about their business unaffected.
Germany as a country may well have been broke after World War II (I haven't studied this)Krupp no doubt felt he was entitled to the money, but didn't think that many/most of the slaves in his factories deserved a share. So he kept it all to himself.
You can't right wrongs with money. As you suggest, history has a lot in it about wrongs committed by one group against another. However, the persons involved in crime should be punished according to the law. Their kids, as long as they were not complicit, should be allowed to go about their business unaffected.
What about those German companies that made vast ammounts of money during the war?
Here is a quick read https://listverse.com/2013/10/24/10-big-business-n...
I have been meaning to delve deeper into BMW's dealings, several years ago I read about BMW being able to ride any storm
Greece is now officially pushing for reparations and rightly so https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/21/gree...
It is far too easy for those that live in countries that weren't occupied by the Nazi's to mention "the past is the past, lets move on"
This is the problem - Ignorance plays its part
Who paid to rebuild Germany?
Penelope Stopit said:
Derek Smith said:
They might have a case if there was any money left in Germany at the end of the war, but it was bankrupt. Fair enough, Krupp might, you know, just might, have had some stashed away somewhere. I remember my father, who had a German friend just after the war, and was of a mind to forgive but not forget, was more than a little miffed at the state funeral of an arms manufacturer who had used slave labour, and made fabulous sums out of it. Whilst he was, supposedly, reduced to poverty at the end of the war, the Americans felt that reparations should be paid to him. Unbelievable. He was a war criminal but was given free money to start his factories again. I wonder if they apologised for bombing them.
Krupp no doubt felt he was entitled to the money, but didn't think that many/most of the slaves in his factories deserved a share. So he kept it all to himself.
You can't right wrongs with money. As you suggest, history has a lot in it about wrongs committed by one group against another. However, the persons involved in crime should be punished according to the law. Their kids, as long as they were not complicit, should be allowed to go about their business unaffected.
Germany as a country may well have been broke after World War II (I haven't studied this)Krupp no doubt felt he was entitled to the money, but didn't think that many/most of the slaves in his factories deserved a share. So he kept it all to himself.
You can't right wrongs with money. As you suggest, history has a lot in it about wrongs committed by one group against another. However, the persons involved in crime should be punished according to the law. Their kids, as long as they were not complicit, should be allowed to go about their business unaffected.
What about those German companies that made vast ammounts of money during the war?
Here is a quick read https://listverse.com/2013/10/24/10-big-business-n...
I have been meaning to delve deeper into BMW's dealings, several years ago I read about BMW being able to ride any storm
Greece is now officially pushing for reparations and rightly so https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/21/gree...
It is far too easy for those that live in countries that weren't occupied by the Nazi's to mention "the past is the past, lets move on"
This is the problem - Ignorance plays its part
Who paid to rebuild Germany?
He had a German friend about 8 years after the war. He was one to move on, although forgetting was not on the cards for him. He damaged a Messerschmitt in the later years of the war and the pilot bailed out. They became friendly and exchanged Christmas cards for many years afterwards.
Given that he lost a lot of family, and nigh on 7 years of his life to the war, I don’t think it was too easy for him to move on. I’ll go with him and say that those who fought for their country on both sides should not be penalised for doing so. Those responsible for the pogrom and slave labour should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law of course. That goes without saying.
As I said, my father was infuriated with the Krupp state funeral. He was, thankfully, unaware, as far as I know, that he’d been given money by the Yanks.
If the perpetuators are dead, then there’s no point in bearing a grudge. Those who focus on historic wrongs are likely to repeat them, as we have seen in a part of the UK.
If it is easy to move on, why do so many people fail to do so?
Derek Smith said:
There is a suggestion that the English, sometimes British, all benefited from the slave trade. This is difficult to balance with the state of the majority of the population at the time. If you read (as I was forced to) Cobbett's Rural Rides you will appreciate the dire situation of the peasants in the early 19thC. Just like today, any suggestion of riches cascading to the lower classes is unevidenced. It's the norm.
I think the slave trade was reprehensible. It formed the basis of the riches that a few families enjoyed in the 18th and 19thC, but mine wasn't one of them. The odds are greatly for them not being yours either. I feel no vicarious liability of something that happened, and stopped happening, nearly 200 years ago.
I don't blame the current Germans for WWI and WWII. I would appreciate the same consideration.
Well said on that DerekI think the slave trade was reprehensible. It formed the basis of the riches that a few families enjoyed in the 18th and 19thC, but mine wasn't one of them. The odds are greatly for them not being yours either. I feel no vicarious liability of something that happened, and stopped happening, nearly 200 years ago.
I don't blame the current Germans for WWI and WWII. I would appreciate the same consideration.
One of my grandfathers was a coach driver the other worked on the railways, none of the wealth arising from slavery came our way. Which is why I have a big problem with any governmental compensation now, two hundred years after the event.
If a few rich families, or institutions, who did benefit want to chip in then go ahead.
eccles said:
55palfers said:
It's time them Romans coughed up too.
Where do you draw the line? Slavery has gone on for thousands of years, and by many races, colours and creeds.We all probably have ancestors who were slaves at some point if you go back far enough.
Penelope Stopit said:
I have been meaning to delve deeper into BMW's dealings, several years ago I read about BMW being able to ride any storm
If you go to the BMW museam in Munich, there is a 100 years of BMW exhibit. The guide will talk you proudly through The years until 1939, then there’s a bit of a gap where he coughs and skips to 1945...Derek Smith said:
They brought a slave culture to this country. There was slavery before, but the Roman one was more institutionalised.
1,000 (or so - for the pedants among us) years later the Norse men came and brought slavery to a new level.
Slavery was the norm.
What is not often acknowledged is that the slave traders were just that; traders. This does not excuse their conduct in any way of course, but it does mean that those they bought were normally already slaves.
After all, slavery was the norm.
Slavery was found not to be legal in England/Wales (Ireland?) in a court, the Somersetts case in the 1770s, and thousands of slaves were released. It took circa 50 years for it to be banned in the British Empire.
This was quite a dramatic move, and one that, as a nation, we should mention every now and again.
There is a suggestion that the English, sometimes British, all benefited from the slave trade. This is difficult to balance with the state of the majority of the population at the time. If you read (as I was forced to) Cobbett's Rural Rides you will appreciate the dire situation of the peasants in the early 19thC. Just like today, any suggestion of riches cascading to the lower classes is unevidenced. It's the norm.
I think the slave trade was reprehensible. It formed the basis of the riches that a few families enjoyed in the 18th and 19thC, but mine wasn't one of them. The odds are greatly for them not being yours either. I feel no vicarious liability of something that happened, and stopped happening, nearly 200 years ago.
I don't blame the current Germans for WWI and WWII. I would appreciate the same consideration.
Good post. It also seems to be conveniently forgotten in Western media that slaves were not necessarily always captured / forced by Europeans. 1,000 (or so - for the pedants among us) years later the Norse men came and brought slavery to a new level.
Slavery was the norm.
What is not often acknowledged is that the slave traders were just that; traders. This does not excuse their conduct in any way of course, but it does mean that those they bought were normally already slaves.
After all, slavery was the norm.
Slavery was found not to be legal in England/Wales (Ireland?) in a court, the Somersetts case in the 1770s, and thousands of slaves were released. It took circa 50 years for it to be banned in the British Empire.
This was quite a dramatic move, and one that, as a nation, we should mention every now and again.
There is a suggestion that the English, sometimes British, all benefited from the slave trade. This is difficult to balance with the state of the majority of the population at the time. If you read (as I was forced to) Cobbett's Rural Rides you will appreciate the dire situation of the peasants in the early 19thC. Just like today, any suggestion of riches cascading to the lower classes is unevidenced. It's the norm.
I think the slave trade was reprehensible. It formed the basis of the riches that a few families enjoyed in the 18th and 19thC, but mine wasn't one of them. The odds are greatly for them not being yours either. I feel no vicarious liability of something that happened, and stopped happening, nearly 200 years ago.
I don't blame the current Germans for WWI and WWII. I would appreciate the same consideration.
I read an article recently about wealthy families in Africa who benefited greatly from capturing members of rival tribes to sell into the slave trade.Even their own people were sold. The article was about descendants not wanting money, but an apology and acceptance that it took place.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/afri...
It was similar to the above but more recent
Liokault said:
If you go to the BMW museum in Munich, there is a 100 years of BMW exhibit. The guide will talk you proudly through The years until 1939, then there’s a bit of a gap where he coughs and skips to 1945...
The same for Mercedes in Stuttgart. I can remember some ominous gaps and strange narratives around 1910-1920, right from when the Kaiser was building his High Seas Fleet to challenge the Royal Navy's supremacy through to the Treaty of Versailles. To anyone outside Germany it was glaring, for Germans I'm not sure what they make of it.Baby Shark doo doo doo doo said:
Good post. It also seems to be conveniently forgotten in Western media that slaves were not necessarily always captured / forced by Europeans.
I read an article recently about wealthy families in Africa who benefited greatly from capturing members of rival tribes to sell into the slave trade.Even their own people were sold. The article was about descendants not wanting money, but an apology and acceptance that it took place.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/afri...
It was similar to the above but more recent
Thanks for the link. I read an article recently about wealthy families in Africa who benefited greatly from capturing members of rival tribes to sell into the slave trade.Even their own people were sold. The article was about descendants not wanting money, but an apology and acceptance that it took place.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/afri...
It was similar to the above but more recent
When I was a teenager I read a fair bit about the 'white slave trade' and, in particular, the Barbary Coast pirates. It seems to have been ignored by modern historians despite it going on into the 19thC.
Together with the link you provided, it shows that everyone was at it.
There is a growing trend, epitomised by the argument that the Egyptians didn't use slaves to build the various pyramids and other structures of ancient Egypt. It seems as if it is a 'washing of the hands', a sort of, ironically, whitewashing of history. There were, it seems, slaves and slaves. Some were called different names so were not, according to those with brushes in their hands, slaves. Some might suggest it was a divide and rule strategy.
In England the vast proportion of people were forced into slavery following the Norman invasion. That it is ignored seems to me to be a lack of willingness to risk political condemnation, particularly by historians. Who would have thought?
Let's all accept that nationalities and races can be really nasty when the opportunity presents itself. If anything, the decision by the courts in the late 18thC to, virtually, outlaw slavery in England/Wales was a remarkable move, and against the norm, and should be celebrated. It doesn't mean we now are any better, but the Somerset case does show that some people are willing to challenge the norm on the grounds of morals. They took on the establishment, including the church of course. We might lose some heroes, but gain others if we are honest, and what better heroes than those who fight for those at the bottom, especially when church and establishment fight back.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff