No Stupid Questions

There are a few mistakes worth pointing out here. I'll try not to "flame you" and just get to the mistakes or misconceptions. First, just because time has passed does not mean the impact of slavery is gone, not for the countries that were sources of slaves nor the families descended from slaves nor the states that benefitted from slavery. Think of the way wealth and influence get passed down between generations. In a similar way the King and the house of Windsor accumulates intergenerational wealth on the backs of slavery, the decendents of slaves accrued an intergenerational debt that is still weighing on many of them. The whole idea that historical wrongs "impacts nobody today" is, frankly, just false.

Another issue is this idea that slavery doesn't continue to impact these countries seeking or reccomended for reparations. There areany lingering impacts, but let's just look at population impacts. Conservatively,1833 was 8 generations ago. Take just 2 people out of a slave source country 8 generations ago, and assume they would have stayed behind to have children, assume 3 kids per pair, that's 3281 people just missing from that country. 3281 people that would have worked, farmed, conducted trade, produced art and conducted academics for every 2 slaves taken in 1833. How many slaves were taken? Just based on the population math how can anyone deny the impact.

Another mistake is to conflate you, personally, with the state. The state is permanent, its human members ephemeral. You may not personally be responsible for slavery, you may not benefit in any way, but the state did and the state is still responsible today for its historical wrongs and the continuing damage. You're worried about your £569, but a bigger concern is that the state can freely commit attrocity, then avoid culpability by just waiting out the directly impacted. Honestly, you should be focused not on denying the damage of slavery, historical and current, and focus more on which rich asshole the state should tap to make pay. Got any old money arristocratic families hanging around the UK that could use lighter wallets?

Looking at the distribution of wealth, it seems like the 1% should owe a bit more reps than the 99%. Personally, I think the fairest path forward is the implementation of a universal basic income. We have the ability to feed and house everyone and eventually, we could mostly automate that process.

If you were guarantees to have the first few levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs covered, do you think you would have an easier time building wealth, or a harder time. Personally, I feel like this would free me up to pursue things that actually benefit myself and society and do so in a meaningful way. Let's get our brothers and sisters out of the month to month (and out of poverty globally) so we can benefit from all their knowledge, skills, insights, and talents as they are no longer on the brink of despair. Let's open up the door to self-actualized progress for the 99%. No one should live like a peasant when we can easily have an abundance. If we ensure that no one gets a bonus until we've covered everyone's basics the world will be a better place. Reps paid by regular people and not multinationals and the global financial elite, to me, are just another way of pitting the poors against each other while the rich count their money and flaunt their power.

Having said that, there's a lot of racist, selfish, classist assholes at every level in the wealth pyramid.

Ending slavery doesn't reset everything back to zero. Imagine if you're running a race against someone else. The person officiating the race (no clue what this kind of person is called 😅) lets your opponent start running the race and keeps you back at the start line. Then, they have a moment of clarity and say to themselves, "Wait a second… This isn't fair!" So, they stop that person where they are, apologize to you, say they promise never to do it again, and blow the whistle so that you can both start the race.

But wait! That person still ended up starting way ahead! But we already ended head starts before the race started so it's OK, right? Well, no, because the person who got the head start still got to start from their advantaged position.

But this isn't quite the same because your issue crosses generations. So, a better analogy might be a relay race. Maybe the head start is stopped just as the second person on the opposing team receives the… thing you pass in a relay race. (Why am I making an analogy to a thing I know nothing about? 😅) They didn't personally get the head start. So, it's OK to go ahead and start the race now with one relay team already on their second runner while the other is on their first, right? It wouldn't be fair to punish that person who didn't directly gain the advantage of the head start.

Well, no, because that team still got an advantage and the other team still started at a disadvantage. Reparations are less about punishing an individual and more about leveling a playing field.