Dear Editor,
Many may not realise it, but those who argue for reparations are fighting a losing battle. European officials have made it quite clear that there is no intention to compensate the descendants of slaves.
In a recent interview with Dutch reporters, noted academic Gert Oostindie stated that, "Europe is going to entertain the dialogue but they will not pay." His sentiments are not different from the British minister with responsibility for Caribbean, who made the following pronouncement: "Do I think that we are in a position where we can financially offer compensation for events that happended two, three hundred years ago? No I don't, and I think we've got to focus on where our commonalities agree and I think that is eradicating slavery as it exists today, also building on the importance of driving the economy and economic development and economic growth."
Another major problem with reparations is that we really don't know who are the decendants. For example, research is being conducted to ascertain the role played by Swiss and Russian slavers in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. But the mere fact that a few private individuals supported slavery does not allow one to sue any of these states.
Emotive positions on reparations are irrelevant, slavery was a legal institution in the Caribbean and essentially a private business. Some argue that it is only fair to compensate the descendants of slaves since groups like the Mau-Mau and Japanese-Canadians have received settlements for past atrocities, but in both instances it was the State that enforced heinous crimes.
Proponents of reparations are saying that, although slavery was a private matter, the State condoned it, therefore their quest for compensation is quite reasonable. But the retrospective application of criminal law makes no sense. Slavery was not unique to blacks, nor was the horror meted out to slaves, for example slaves in ancient Rome were often torn to pieces by savage animals in order to appease their masters and for hundreds of years the Vikings enslaved the Slavs in Eastern Europe. Present day descendants of these groups will not ask for reparations because it is too absurd.
It is hypocritical to demand reparations from Europe when the African kingdoms of Oyo and Abomey benefited significantly from the slave trade. According to one commentator in a recent piece: "While Europe invested profits from the trade in laying the foundation of a powerful economic empire, African kings and traders were content with wearing used caps and admiring themselves in worthless mirrors while swigging adulterated brandy bought with the freedom of their kinsmen." So maybe it is fair to say that blacks have always preferred pomp and pageantry over actual work.
Even if we receive reparations, the Maroons are not entitled to any compensation because the British already provided them with the Cockpit Country and their ancestors were not enslaved by Britain.
Lipton Matthews
lo_matthews@yahoo.com
Reparation is an absurd notion; we should forget about it
-->
Many may not realise it, but those who argue for reparations are fighting a losing battle. European officials have made it quite clear that there is no intention to compensate the descendants of slaves.
In a recent interview with Dutch reporters, noted academic Gert Oostindie stated that, "Europe is going to entertain the dialogue but they will not pay." His sentiments are not different from the British minister with responsibility for Caribbean, who made the following pronouncement: "Do I think that we are in a position where we can financially offer compensation for events that happended two, three hundred years ago? No I don't, and I think we've got to focus on where our commonalities agree and I think that is eradicating slavery as it exists today, also building on the importance of driving the economy and economic development and economic growth."
Another major problem with reparations is that we really don't know who are the decendants. For example, research is being conducted to ascertain the role played by Swiss and Russian slavers in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. But the mere fact that a few private individuals supported slavery does not allow one to sue any of these states.
Emotive positions on reparations are irrelevant, slavery was a legal institution in the Caribbean and essentially a private business. Some argue that it is only fair to compensate the descendants of slaves since groups like the Mau-Mau and Japanese-Canadians have received settlements for past atrocities, but in both instances it was the State that enforced heinous crimes.
Proponents of reparations are saying that, although slavery was a private matter, the State condoned it, therefore their quest for compensation is quite reasonable. But the retrospective application of criminal law makes no sense. Slavery was not unique to blacks, nor was the horror meted out to slaves, for example slaves in ancient Rome were often torn to pieces by savage animals in order to appease their masters and for hundreds of years the Vikings enslaved the Slavs in Eastern Europe. Present day descendants of these groups will not ask for reparations because it is too absurd.
It is hypocritical to demand reparations from Europe when the African kingdoms of Oyo and Abomey benefited significantly from the slave trade. According to one commentator in a recent piece: "While Europe invested profits from the trade in laying the foundation of a powerful economic empire, African kings and traders were content with wearing used caps and admiring themselves in worthless mirrors while swigging adulterated brandy bought with the freedom of their kinsmen." So maybe it is fair to say that blacks have always preferred pomp and pageantry over actual work.
Even if we receive reparations, the Maroons are not entitled to any compensation because the British already provided them with the Cockpit Country and their ancestors were not enslaved by Britain.
Lipton Matthews
lo_matthews@yahoo.com
Reparation is an absurd notion; we should forget about it
-->