Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sebster wrote:I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.

It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.

Ouze wrote:Putting aside the fact this is less of a proposal than just a white paper

I really think this needs to be repeated for everyone's sake so it can be put into perspective before we can proceed with this topic. But given the already high level of race relation dialogue on display in this thread, I doubt it will really matter.

Interesting, then maybe the thread title should be amended to something like "Subcouncil of UN drafts reperation proposal". As it is, the title makes it sound like the UN's fully on board and pushing it out the door.

Not seeing race relation dialogue, but am seeing a lot of dialog about reparations.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sebster wrote:I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.

It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.

Ouze wrote:Putting aside the fact this is less of a proposal than just a white paper

I really think this needs to be repeated for everyone's sake so it can be put into perspective before we can proceed with this topic. But given the already high level of race relation dialogue on display in this thread, I doubt it will really matter.

Interesting, then maybe the thread title should be amended to something like "Subcouncil of UN drafts reperation proposal". As it is, the title makes it sound like the UN's fully on board and pushing it out the door.

The issue with the title isn't surprising given the OP, but actually reading the story would probably help a lot of people too.

However, it's easier for people to come here and bitch about the UN and Black Lives Matter, so whatever.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sebster wrote:I know its fun to get all outraged about the UN, but you guys are really stretching with this one. This is a single working group, writing a report that it puts up to a UN High Commissioner, who can then look to recommend it actual national working bodies, who might support it, and if they do then it would become a piece of advice that could be given to the US.

It’s the equivalent of a US government department putting together a briefing document, and then having it reported as official US policy before its even gone before the head of department.

Ouze wrote:Putting aside the fact this is less of a proposal than just a white paper

I really think this needs to be repeated for everyone's sake so it can be put into perspective before we can proceed with this topic. But given the already high level of race relation dialogue on display in this thread, I doubt it will really matter.

Interesting, then maybe the thread title should be amended to something like "Subcouncil of UN drafts reperation proposal". As it is, the title makes it sound like the UN's fully on board and pushing it out the door.

The issue with the title isn't surprising given the OP, but actually reading the story would probably help a lot of people too.

However, it's easier for people to come here and bitch about the UN and Black Lives Matter, so whatever.

It's the internet, people have always bitched about *insert anything*. Also, it's the Off Topic forum. Are you surprised?

But seriously, a less inflammatory title probably would have changed the direction of this thread.

Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

I don't think that is accurate. A quick search showed the Barbary pirates sold 1-1.25 million Europeans in Africa, but 10.7 million Africans were shipped to the Americas.

One source: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

I also read the wiki articles relevant to the topic.

 CptJake wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

I don't think that is accurate. A quick search showed the Barbary pirates sold 1-1.25 million Europeans in Africa, but 10.7 million Africans were shipped to the Americas.

One source: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

I also read the wiki articles relevant to the topic.

Sorry, I meant to say North America.

 CptJake wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

I don't think that is accurate. A quick search showed the Barbary pirates sold 1-1.25 million Europeans in Africa, but 10.7 million Africans were shipped to the Americas.

Yeah, the first post is wildly incorrect.

I think part of the deal is the unique position of American slavery in US history; its pervasive. The country wasn't just building cities on money from slaves, but the entire nation was built on slaves. Slaves were given political power in the US Constitution via the 3/5ths compromise (actually kind of weird to think about*). The Revolution was influenced by the fear that if the British government could simply quarter itself in your house and take your money (property) without representation, then what would stop them from taking your slaves if it suited them? It was a major motivator for slave holders across the US in the Revolution and the Constitutional conventions. Nearly 4 million slaves were owned in the US in 1860. It's the largest slave population in the Western world since the Roman Empire by a massive margin. Compare to the largest slave holding state after the end of American slavery, the Sokoto Caliphate in Africa, which hosted 1/4 of that number (and they didn't practice Chattel slavery, which is a particularly nasty form of slaveholding)

*Basically meant slaveholders had political power granted to and derived from their property rights in slaves.

I'm actually curious how much slavery features in the history education of other countries. Not just in high school, but as a topic of significance.

 LordofHats wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

I don't think that is accurate. A quick search showed the Barbary pirates sold 1-1.25 million Europeans in Africa, but 10.7 million Africans were shipped to the Americas.

Yeah, the first post is wildly incorrect.

I think part of the deal is the unique position of American slavery in US history; its pervasive. The country wasn't just building cities on money from slaves, but the entire nation was built on slaves. Slaves were given political power in the US Constitution via the 3/5ths compromise (actually kind of weird to think about*). The Revolution was influenced by the fear that if the British government could simply quarter itself in your house and take your money (property) without representation, then what would stop them from taking your slaves if it suited them? It was a major motivator for slave holders across the US in the Revolution and the Constitutional conventions.

*Basically meant slaveholders had political power granted to and derived from their property rights in slaves.

I'm actually curious how much slavery features in the history education of other countries. Not just in high school, but as a topic of significance.

Except slavery was all ready on it's way out in many states. By 1787 slavery was illegal in 6 states, and the territories that would eventually become 6 other states.
Also, slavery wasn't exactly "economically viable" for most operations. In fact the only operations in which it made economic sense were tobacco and cotton. Slaves were used for other tasks, but it was either a frivolous waste (like having a Ferrari today) or they would be used to raise other crops in between the planting and harvesting of tobacco and cotton.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Except slavery was all ready on it's way out in many states. By 1787 slavery was illegal in 6 states, and the territories that would eventually become 6 other states.

Yeah, but that doesn't end slavery.

Historians have been paying a lot more attention in recent years to the question of economic viability (especially James Huston). Question; What about the brutal conditions of the American Guilded Age is incompatible with slavery? Slaves can't go on strike. They aren't allowed to complain. People have horribly overstated the economic viability of slavery in an effort at apologism. The reality is that industrialization was ripe for a slave work force, so we can't really take it as a granted that slavery was just naturally on the way out.

An extensive literature claims that industrialists could not have employed slave labor profitably in industrial enterprises, that free labor was both cheaper and more productive. Slaves were too expensive a capital investment for manufacturing, slaves had no incentive to be industrious as did free labor, slaves were incapable of learning the necessary skills for tending machines, and slaves... Some of these claims may have validity in the early stages of industrialization, but they have less potency in a matured industrial economy. These analyses do not look carefully at the economic trends that unfolded in the United States after 1880. The obvious trends were mass production in large hierarchical business units; machinery to replace skilled labor; unskilled, virtually brute, labor to tend the machines; a bureaucracy to oversee the system; and an internal police to keep laborers from organizing. What in this scenario offers an argument against the use of slave labor? Does not it instead look like the manufacturing processes in the United States moved exactly in the direction in which slave labor could be employed in manufacturing? Had it not been for emancipation, the use of slave labor in southern manufacturing would have become a very real possibility after the 1870s and 1880s.

Huston, James L.. Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War (Civil War America) (pp. 99-100). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.

I really should have started using ebooks years ago. This stuff is useful XD

 cuda1179 wrote:
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

Well, if you find it something to be worth looking into you can always go to the UN and see if a handful of people want to form a committee to write a small paper on it to pass up the chain for consideration.

 LordofHats wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Except slavery was all ready on it's way out in many states. By 1787 slavery was illegal in 6 states, and the territories that would eventually become 6 other states.

Yeah, but that doesn't end slavery.

Historians have been paying a lot more attention in recent years to the question of economic viability (especially James Huston). Question; What about the brutal conditions of the American Guilded Age is incompatible with slavery? Slaves can't go on strike. They aren't allowed to complain. People have horribly overstated the economic viability of slavery in an effort at apologism. The reality is that industrialization was ripe for a slave work force, so we can't really take it as a granted that slavery was just naturally on the way out.

An extensive literature claims that industrialists could not have employed slave labor profitably in industrial enterprises, that free labor was both cheaper and more productive. Slaves were too expensive a capital investment for manufacturing, slaves had no incentive to be industrious as did free labor, slaves were incapable of learning the necessary skills for tending machines, and slaves... Some of these claims may have validity in the early stages of industrialization, but they have less potency in a matured industrial economy. These analyses do not look carefully at the economic trends that unfolded in the United States after 1880. The obvious trends were mass production in large hierarchical business units; machinery to replace skilled labor; unskilled, virtually brute, labor to tend the machines; a bureaucracy to oversee the system; and an internal police to keep laborers from organizing. What in this scenario offers an argument against the use of slave labor? Does not it instead look like the manufacturing processes in the United States moved exactly in the direction in which slave labor could be employed in manufacturing? Had it not been for emancipation, the use of slave labor in southern manufacturing would have become a very real possibility after the 1870s and 1880s.

Huston, James L.. Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War (Civil War America) (pp. 99-100). The University of North Carolina Press. Kindle Edition.

I really should have started using ebooks years ago. This stuff is useful XD

The largest argument against using slaves in industry was the cost of acquiring and training them versus the death rate. Buying a male slave in a good-working condition and age cost thousands of dollars (1800's dollars). Getting an Irishman to do the job set you back a few bucks. It didn't really matter when Irish died either. In fact, the death rate among Irish workers was several times higher than that of slaves in the South.

Huston's point is that by 1880 you needed a lot less skilled labor to manage a contemporary modern factory. You needed muscle.

It's not an absolute affirmation that slavery would have endured, but an examination of the Gilded Age and the King Cotton South, and noting that the structures of the two models were similar and that there's no reason for us to just presume slaves couldn't be used in the Industrial Revolution. Northern Industrialists treated labor as expendable because for them it was, but that wasn't really core to their business model.

EDIT: Sorry, posted too fast on that initial nonsense, missed the correction.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

WHAT!

Hey man. The numbers might be wrong, but there's something to be said for pissing off the United States by enslaving white people.

Barbary States War. You're welcome Europe (and give Sweden some credit they helped!)

There was more to ending slavery. A lot of our trading partners were heavily influencing us towards ending slavery anyway. Our chief recipients of cotton and tobacco for instance really didn't like us using slaves, and were considering tariffs because of it. In fact it has been speculated that (hypothetically here) that if the South had either won the Civil War, or some kind of slavery was tolerated after repatriation, that slavery itself would have collapsed before the 1900's anyway.

It probably would have, slavery was on the way out and the North was largely prepared to let it die out slowly. Economic, Demographic, and Cultural forces were eroding it. But once the South attempted to secede, abolition organically and naturally became a wartime tool and aim.

No one alive today was a slave, no none alive today owned a slave. There is no US systemic racism, there is a lot of local racism for whatever reasons, but there is no federal law allowing any kind of oppression to anyone. Reparations were paid in full by 646,392 men who most of which never owned a slave as they were Union Soldiers.

 thekingofkings wrote:
No one alive today was a slave, no none alive today owned a slave. There is no US systemic racism, there is a lot of local racism for whatever reasons, but there is no federal law allowing any kind of oppression to anyone. Reparations were paid in full by 646,392 men who most of which never owned a slave as they were Union Soldiers.

It ain't that simple. If it were the world would be a better place.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Interesting, then maybe the thread title should be amended to something like "Subcouncil of UN drafts reperation proposal". As it is, the title makes it sound like the UN's fully on board and pushing it out the door.

The title is fine because the document is being issued by the Human Rights Council not the working group. If people can't figure out on your own that the HRC is a subordinate component of the UN General Assembly, then I can't help them. Still, if you really need to split hairs, you can read it as "United Nations Human Rights Council published a working group report that includes a recommendation for "reparatory justice" for African Americans."

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
...actually reading the story would probably help a lot of people too.

However, it's easier for people to come here and bitch about the UN and Black Lives Matter, so whatever.

I'm concerned I may have posted a bad link to the U.N. document in the OP so I made an edit with a new one. Hopefully people can get that easier. Still, the link in the Washington Post article should have worked for everyone.

While on the subject of reading the document, there were fourteen (I think) recommendations and I was hoping that while the topic of reparations would drive the thread (as it did the Washington Post news article) some of the other items would be brought up as well. That's why I (tried) to link to the PDF and ask people to "Take a few minutes and read through this and especially the recommendations in the U.N. document,"

Reparations does appear to be the driving force behind the report but there are other recommendations made besides that. I've paraphrased a handful of the other recommendations simplified in my own words for brevity.

1. Establish a national human rights commission in accordance with the Paris Principles and include a specific division to monitor the human rights of African Americans.

2. Ratify various international and regional human rights treaties to which the United States is still not a party and review any reservations from human rights treaties that the USA has ratified.

3. Codify into law the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as other international and regional human rights treaties. Give the force of law to those decisions, resolutions, recommendations, etc. that the Human Rights Council and other related institutions propose.

4. Monuments, memorials and markers should be erected to facilitate public dialogue.

5. Federal and state legislation should be passed recognizing the negative impact of enslavement and racial injustice.

6. Issue a formal apology for slavery, give money to and cancel debts of Caribbean nations for various health and education programs.

7. Fund unnamed local human rights organizations.

8. Adopt and enforce the U.N.'s rules on the use of force by LEOs.

There are other recommendations in the report as well. I left out those I thought redundant, match programs already in place, or are too broadly worded to be meaningful. The report also has investigations and conclusions to cover if anyone cares to.

Again, I invite everyone to read the document. http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/33/61/Add.2&Lang=E

I wish I could link to a video of Penn and Teller's BullSh*t episode where they deal with reparations, but it no longer seems to be available on YouTube.

Bottom line, who pays and who benefits?

My answer is still the same.

U.N. can feth off.

I'd rather we embrace our commonalities and move forward in our nation as Americans.

The day we can view skin color as something superficial, rather a means to divide us, is a day we can rejoice.

 jreilly89 wrote:
But what about Poland? I would think reparations would extend beyond just Israel

You can take that up with the 1953 West German government if you want.

How is that your answer, anyway? You said reparations to black americans weren't needed, and one reason you gave was Germany not giving to the Jews. I pointed out actually the gave billions, and then you ask why they didn't give to more people. There's not a lot of consistency there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
The title is fine because the document is being issued by the Human Rights Council not the working group. If people can't figure out on your own that the HRC is a subordinate component of the UN General Assembly, then I can't help them. Still, if you really need to split hairs, you can read it as "United Nations Human Rights Council published a working group report that includes a recommendation for "reparatory justice" for African Americans."

You've still got it wrong. This report isn't being issued by the HRC, it is being submitted to the HRC by a working group.

 sebster wrote:

You can take that up with the 1953 West German government if you want.

How is that your answer, anyway? You said reparations to black americans weren't needed, and one reason you gave was Germany not giving to the Jews. I pointed out actually the gave billions, and then you ask why they didn't give to more people. There's not a lot of consistency there.

Most of those billions went to Israel, who in turn used the majority of those reparations to buy more weapons for the IDF. In fact, it was a common means of getting new hardware when the Arabs upped the game, back before they could tap into the U.S. foreign aid spigot. Tel Aviv would guilt West Germany into more money, which ended up in the coffers of American and French aerospace firms and arms makers for the latest Western hardware.

You've still got it wrong. This report isn't being issued by the HRC, it is being submitted to the HRC by a working group.

This. In other words, it's just more hot air from an organization, and groups associated with said organization, that struggles to remain relevant, and continue rolling in the money from the wealthiest member-states. If the U.N. won't take hard action against Security Council members for ACTUAL HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES (i.e. Red China and the U.S.S.R.), then they won't do anything about a media and grievance industry spun "problem" in the United States.


This recommendation for this "working group" is nothing more than a joke.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

Citation required.

 Psienesis wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Should African Nations be forced to pay European nations reparations for slavery? Barbary Pirates took more white Europeans into slavery than there were Africans forced into new-world slavery.

Citation required.

Random googling found....

Reports of Barbary raids and kidnappings of those in Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, England, Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, and as far north as Iceland exist from between the 16th to the 19th centuries. It is estimated that between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by pirates and sold as slaves in Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli during this time period. The slave trade in Europeans in other parts of the Mediterranean is not included in this estimation.[8]

Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.

In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.

So if you limit it to the US only, it's true. If you include the Caribbean and South America there were more African slaves.

I'd not seen those numbers before, it does make US slavery seem like a drop in the ocean compared to a lot of other atrocities.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
So if you limit it to the US only, it's true. If you include the Caribbean and South America there were more African slaves.

I'd not seen those numbers before, it does make US slavery seem like a drop in the ocean compared to a lot of other atrocities.

The US Census of 1860 recorded 4,000,000+ slaves in the United States (12% of the total US population at the time).

We banned the international slave trade in 1807 as part of a larger political compromise between Northern and Southern politicans. Basically we stopped participating in the Atlantic Slave trade before it even kicked into high gear. Instead, the Upper South became "breeding" states, that operated a lot more like puppy mills than any of us probably want to think about.

I'm not really sure that's any better, but either way it's not a drop in the bucket and debating who did slavery more is beside the point.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Most of those billions went to Israel, who in turn used the majority of those reparations to buy more weapons for the IDF.

Actually most of it went as loans and grants to companies to buy new manufacturing plant, and to build water, electricity and rail networks across the new state.

Tel Aviv would guilt West Germany into more money

No, there was a single agreed upon schedule of payments. This wasn't increased or altered by any kind of guilt process.

This. In other words, it's just more hot air from an organization, and groups associated with said organization, that struggles to remain relevant, and continue rolling in the money from the wealthiest member-states.

Well, in crazy words maybe.

Organisations produce opinion pieces, suggestions of future policy, commonly called white papers. This is part of the democratic process, they are generally down by junior levels of government, to suggest a future direction and invite commentary on the matter. It's just a basic process of any kind of government.

You can layer on lots of UN hate on to your understanding of that process if you want. I mean, that is not only your right, it appears to be your obligation as a citizen of the United States. But it is very silly.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not really sure that's any better, but either way it's not a drop in the bucket and debating who did slavery more is beside the point.

No, it's not relevant to reparations. But it does put things in to perspective a bit more. There's still 20-30 million slaves now, and I wasn't aware that less than 5% of African slaves shipped to the new world ended up in the US.

It makes sense when you think that the US was a small part of the New World compared to the rest of the Americas, only began to exist in 1776, and the transatlantic slave trade began to be put down by the RN in 1807.