• alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “They should be happy with what we’ve already spent” does not follow from “Britian only finished off paying the bill for freeing the slaves to begin with” because “paying the bill for freeing the slaves” was paying the people who previously owned slaves compensation for them no longer having free chattel labor, not the people who were (and are descended from) the people who served as chattel labor.

      or, to put it another way: none of the people who suffered, or who are descended from the people who suffered, have gotten anything “you’ve spent”―if they did, why would they be asking for reparations in the first place? they’d have in a sense already gotten them if what you were saying was true, and obviously they have not.

    • Irina@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Britian “paid” to free slaves by paying slaveowners, not by paying reparations. “what [you]’ve already spent” means nothing here.

        • Irina@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The British Government paid British slaveowners. The British government could have made ownership of slavery illegal without paying the slaveowners, but they chose to pay the slaveowners. None of that has anything to with reparations to the enslaved people. Also worth noting that in this case, Barbadians were enslaved by the British, not the Spanish or Dutch