The landmark resolution calls for an apology and contributions to a reparations fund, without specifying an amount.

The United Nations General Assembly has voted to recognise the enslavement of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity”, a move advocates hope will pave the way for healing and justice.

The resolution - proposed by Ghana - called for this designation, while also urging UN member states to consider apologising for the slave trade and contributing to a reparations fund. It does not mention a specific amount of money.

The proposal was adopted with 123 votes in favour and three against - the United States, Israel and Argentina.

Countries like the UK have long rejected calls to pay reparations, saying today’s institutions cannot be held responsible for past wrongs.

  • MasterNerd@lemmy.zipEnglish
    153·
    9 hours ago

    I don’t understand why people just knee-jerk reply like this without actually researching what they’re denying. It’s a pretty well-known fact that most of the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade came from African warlords and slavers (or at least I thought it was). I don’t thin that’s a particularly strong argument against reparations though.

    Educate yourself

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      918·
      9 hours ago

      They were armed and trained by the West and acted as Western mercenaries. This is like blaming neo-colonialism on the countries suffering from it because the West installed a puppet government there.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          44·
          7 hours ago

          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/31/epiloguetothedebateonslav

          The single most important - and also, alas, the most overlooked - causative factor is the gun. Once African tribes that formerly fought with bows and arrows or spears were introduced to the devastating nature of the musket, the cannon and the Gatling, all bets were off, so to speak.

          Apart from directly hiring their own mercenary armies to go into the interior of Africa to kidnap slaves and pressgang them into the purpose-built slave forts, the European slavers would go to Tribe A and say to its leaders: “Look, we only came here to buy your gold, as we’ve been doing for years. But Tribe B has sent emissaries to us, asking us to sell guns to it. Now, we know that you are their immediate target, having fought them in terrible wars not so long ago. Because of our friendship for you, we have told them we have no guns. For now.”

          • MasterNerd@lemmy.zipEnglish
            11·
            2 hours ago

            The only part of your original statement that is accurate according to your article was that they were armed by the Europeans. People actually by the European-trained raiders making up a small part of the total slave exports as stated in your provided article.

            Europeans slavers being manipulative doesn’t excuse the actions of those who sold them slaves, all it means is that human beings are all capable of great evil. It kind if reminds me of blockbusting in the US during the 20th century. Just because the real estate agents were playing on the racist fears of the white homeowners doesn’t excuse white flight.

            I do kind of take issue with the original commentor trying to handwave reparations because of this fact, but we don’t need to try and whitewash (yeah I know) the actions of anyone involved.

            • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
              12·
              1 hour ago

              The slavery was only possible because they were armed and agitated by the Europeans. Get out of here with your filthy victim blaming revisionism

              • MasterNerd@lemmy.zipEnglish
                11·
                1 hour ago

                Uhhhh

                I feel like I’m just constantly doing an umm actually here because nuance seems lost on you.

                Slavery was only possible because of European agitators? It existed all throughout Africa for thousands if years. In all fairness, it was nowhere near as bad as chattel slavery, and you could probably make an argument that a lot of if the africans selling the slaves didn’t realize what chattel slavery entailed, but it seems like the revisionism is not happening on my side. I’m not trying to excuse European atrocities here, just call out reductionist rhetoric.