-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
European era, what's your guy's opinion about reparations for colonialism?
- Thread starter Heromanz
- Start date
Yes, I feel the Netherlands has a moral obligation to compensate for slavery and colonialism. The practical execution of this obligation is going to be hard and slow though, that's why we need the country to buy into the principle first before we discuss how it would work. It's not going to be something a single government coalition will accomplish.
At the very least, appropriated art should be returned, perhaps with offers to finance or help set up storage and curation. Where we took away language, custom and religion, we should support local initiatives or institutions to preserve these (which likely already happens through EU programs, but we should take a special interest in cultures we tried to erase.)
After that, it gets complicated fast. I'm not in favour of individual reparations because the huge bureaucracy that requires will most certainly create more bad blood between us and the victims (e.g. demanding proof or fraud mitigation measures.) Lump sums to governments runs into issues of local corruption or going against our national security interests or EU diplomatic posture.
So at the very least, I want a serious investigation into how reparations could be translated into actual policy. It's not something we can just do overnight even if the majority agrees on the moral imperative (which is unlikely in the current climate.)
At the very least, appropriated art should be returned, perhaps with offers to finance or help set up storage and curation. Where we took away language, custom and religion, we should support local initiatives or institutions to preserve these (which likely already happens through EU programs, but we should take a special interest in cultures we tried to erase.)
After that, it gets complicated fast. I'm not in favour of individual reparations because the huge bureaucracy that requires will most certainly create more bad blood between us and the victims (e.g. demanding proof or fraud mitigation measures.) Lump sums to governments runs into issues of local corruption or going against our national security interests or EU diplomatic posture.
So at the very least, I want a serious investigation into how reparations could be translated into actual policy. It's not something we can just do overnight even if the majority agrees on the moral imperative (which is unlikely in the current climate.)
the first 13 countries with the highest proportion of foreign aid in their budgets are european ones, with several former colonial powers being among a lot of international aid given is woefully mispent/reallocated though, not sure how much of it ever gets to the little guy. a lot of is probably because of colonial powers either cutting or running or being forced to leave without stable ruling structures being in place
From what Ive read it was about 2,5 % of gdp. Hardly crippling. And Germany had to be "compelled" to pay. I honestly havent read up on the latest thoughts but last I read up on it the weimar government got a lot more of the blame.
Definitely not. There are a lot of issues with this.
Fundamentally I don't think anyone should have to be punished or "pay" crimes committed by their predecessors.
If you look into it further if is extremely difficult to decide who should pay and who should benefit.
Those who should pay-the beneficiaries of colonialism right? Consider the UK, a colonial nation. If you consider the modern inhabitants of the UK, a lot of us were "victims" of colonialism rather than beneficiaries. Ireland was one of the most brutally treated possessions. At least 25%of the UK are of Irish descent, with about 10% having an Irish grandparent. About 7-8% of the UK is "Asian" (here that means Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi) and 4%+ is black. 3%is mixed, and about 5%is non - british white (mostly Eastern European). Is it right to be asking all these people to contribute to reparations?
Who should benefit: a lot of former colonies are doing very well now. Should the UK be paying reperations to Singapore or Ireland? Should Bangladesh and Pakistan get more than India, because they are poorer now?
Colonialism was complicated, the winners and losers and not always very clear. A lot of people suffered, but many also benefited.
Colonialism ended several generations ago now. We should be looking forward, and not acting as victims.
Fundamentally I don't think anyone should have to be punished or "pay" crimes committed by their predecessors.
If you look into it further if is extremely difficult to decide who should pay and who should benefit.
Those who should pay-the beneficiaries of colonialism right? Consider the UK, a colonial nation. If you consider the modern inhabitants of the UK, a lot of us were "victims" of colonialism rather than beneficiaries. Ireland was one of the most brutally treated possessions. At least 25%of the UK are of Irish descent, with about 10% having an Irish grandparent. About 7-8% of the UK is "Asian" (here that means Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi) and 4%+ is black. 3%is mixed, and about 5%is non - british white (mostly Eastern European). Is it right to be asking all these people to contribute to reparations?
Who should benefit: a lot of former colonies are doing very well now. Should the UK be paying reperations to Singapore or Ireland? Should Bangladesh and Pakistan get more than India, because they are poorer now?
Colonialism was complicated, the winners and losers and not always very clear. A lot of people suffered, but many also benefited.
Colonialism ended several generations ago now. We should be looking forward, and not acting as victims.
Yes Ireland should no doubt be getting reperations. Britain can't even properly apologise for its role in the famine let alone the 800 years of brutal occupation.
To be expected that a huge chunk of Europeans here have no self awareness. That being said, not every European country participated in colonialism but was in fact a victim of it so there are extreme cases like Britain/France/Spain to go along with countries like Ireland.
Yes. I think it's extremely disingenuous to refer to a time that actual living people remember as "generations ago". If you said "segregation ended several generations ago now. We should be looking forward, and not acting as victims" about the US, you'd be laughed of the thread.
OP
OP
But there are plenty of people still alive who lived through it.
Exactly. Whether it was 50 years, 100 years, 200 years ago it doesn't matter. Suffering is suffering.
Ignoring the fact that the West and the ODA hand out a hundred billion dollars a year in foreign aid...
Looking from a US perspective alone, Americans are not only interested in providing additional foreign aid to Africa, they're also more inclined to increase foreign aid to Africa by cutting foreign aid to Eastern Europe.
Americans are more likely to support direct aid to Africa than they are for aid to Black Americans.
It's for completely bullshit ego back patting reasons built on stereotypes.
My question for this thread is, outside of the significant amount of foreign aid provided, and outside of providing more foreign aid (and outside of returning artifacts and the like since that was a different thread), what else would you include in reparations outside of writing a check to these countries, which is already being done?
Even Croatians like The Doomed One pay into foreign aid and support due to being a part of the EU.
But the 50's (which you're lost referred to), literally was generations ago. Several generations have passed. Someone born in the 50's is likely to be a grandparent and many will be great grandparents. Several generations have passed. Few people who were adults at the time are still alive (they would be 90+.) ie there are few people alive who have any responsibility for colonialism.
So questions then...
1. If payments were to go out to places, how would it be watched? As other's have pointed out various governments are corrupt and tend to horde the money given to them for aid and use it for their own things (Planes, cars, clothing, etc.) or use it to cause harm to their own people (paying for military items to oppress others in their nation. How will it be made sure that the money is getting out there properly?
2. How much does each person get and how do you divide it all up? Take Korea right now for example with Japan. The Labor situation where there was forced labor to work at companies during the time of occupation. Does the money go to the remaining family? How much do they get? Is it going to be based on if the person was actually part of the situation, or how much work they did?
3. Do we also expect payment in regard to shorter periods of colonialism, and slave holdings? Example, Spain for a very brief time had slaves from Japan, but that was cut by the Tokugawa Shogunate after a period of time and we don't know the exact number of people used or sent over to South America. Not to mention the issue of POWs and kidnapped people from other countries, does that qualify too?
Honestly, I sort of like a mixed thing for this. A fund set up for use by the country to pay out fees to either individuals or groups based on documentation of some sort and investment in the countries that need it most. As other's have also said you have to figure out a cut off date, or else you can go back as far as Rome and the various earlier empires that kidnapped and captured people to be used as Slaves. Also, said money needs to be watched to make sure that it's not being abused by the government and put in peoples pockets.
And one other question, what about the deal where work = paying for becoming free? Do you pay for that as well?
Art stolen should go back., sure, namely if the place that it's going to can keep the item safe, and it needs to go back for public use, not private use. Drives me crazy when I hear about some art piece that was returned and then the owner that got it back decides to sell it off to a private collector instead of giving it to a museum. What was the point in returning it if they're just going to sell it again?
1. If payments were to go out to places, how would it be watched? As other's have pointed out various governments are corrupt and tend to horde the money given to them for aid and use it for their own things (Planes, cars, clothing, etc.) or use it to cause harm to their own people (paying for military items to oppress others in their nation. How will it be made sure that the money is getting out there properly?
2. How much does each person get and how do you divide it all up? Take Korea right now for example with Japan. The Labor situation where there was forced labor to work at companies during the time of occupation. Does the money go to the remaining family? How much do they get? Is it going to be based on if the person was actually part of the situation, or how much work they did?
3. Do we also expect payment in regard to shorter periods of colonialism, and slave holdings? Example, Spain for a very brief time had slaves from Japan, but that was cut by the Tokugawa Shogunate after a period of time and we don't know the exact number of people used or sent over to South America. Not to mention the issue of POWs and kidnapped people from other countries, does that qualify too?
Honestly, I sort of like a mixed thing for this. A fund set up for use by the country to pay out fees to either individuals or groups based on documentation of some sort and investment in the countries that need it most. As other's have also said you have to figure out a cut off date, or else you can go back as far as Rome and the various earlier empires that kidnapped and captured people to be used as Slaves. Also, said money needs to be watched to make sure that it's not being abused by the government and put in peoples pockets.
And one other question, what about the deal where work = paying for becoming free? Do you pay for that as well?
Art stolen should go back., sure, namely if the place that it's going to can keep the item safe, and it needs to go back for public use, not private use. Drives me crazy when I hear about some art piece that was returned and then the owner that got it back decides to sell it off to a private collector instead of giving it to a museum. What was the point in returning it if they're just going to sell it again?
lol at the many "no's".
as a fellow European, the amount of genocide committed against Africa and Asia and the Americas are so immense and horrifying that nothing short of complete and utter capitulation to the former colonized nations should be expected.
shit even right now European nations are leeching of the "third world" with neocolonial systems and exploitation. Just take a look at what France is doing in Africa still to this day!
as a fellow European, the amount of genocide committed against Africa and Asia and the Americas are so immense and horrifying that nothing short of complete and utter capitulation to the former colonized nations should be expected.
shit even right now European nations are leeching of the "third world" with neocolonial systems and exploitation. Just take a look at what France is doing in Africa still to this day!
Last edited:
There are things European former colonial powers could do besides throw billions at Africa with thoroughly mixed results.
I'd support other measures that helped the countries still struggling to prosper with freedom and security. I don't believe a lump sum would actually help those countries or the people that live there in a meaningful way
I'd support other measures that helped the countries still struggling to prosper with freedom and security. I don't believe a lump sum would actually help those countries or the people that live there in a meaningful way
Speaking pragmatically with richer nations as a whole, it's a far better investment to provide aid to stabilize the global south now versus when situations get way worse in the future. If you don't want all these immigrants in the first place maybe help make their countries less of a "shithole" so they can lead happy lives there like every human on earth wants to.
Yup. The famine was genocide. Also, I don't want to be semantic, but the occupation is ongoing.
Countries like England, France and Spain definitely should. You Americans need to understand though that 'European' includes a lot of countries. Many of them had little to no involvement in colonialism. Some of them didn't even exist at the time. Demanding that e.g. Latvia should pay reparations because Belgium committed genocide in Congo is not right either.
Countries that heavily abused colonies and enriched themselves through the suffering of others should help their former victims in some way.
Countries that heavily abused colonies and enriched themselves through the suffering of others should help their former victims in some way.
Pretty much all EU countries already do this, and thats why I answered No to the poll.
I'd rather see aid go to the countries that need it the most, rather than aid going to countries that just happened to be former colonies.
Well, I come from a country (Greece) that not only did not participate in colonialism but was actually a victim of Ottoman imperialism and occupation for 400 years.
It's more complex than just "pay them for the damage". Politics exist.
Our countries are absolutely responsible for the situation of many of our colonies nowadays - how we drew the borders, the people we kept in power, the genocides, the exploitation, that kind of thing. And we should definitely do something to help our former colonies.
That being said, there's politics. If we send money to a free, democratic, functional country, then we can assume the money will be used for the good of its citizens. However, many former colonies ended up with corrupt governments - by our fault, most of the time. And you see how that can become a problem. Not only we'd send money that will enrich a few oligarchs instead of the people, but we'd help them use that money as propaganda about how they made an european country bend to their will.
It's complex, and we can't just start toppling governments left and right. I'm all for helping, but we can't just send money and say it's settled.
Our countries are absolutely responsible for the situation of many of our colonies nowadays - how we drew the borders, the people we kept in power, the genocides, the exploitation, that kind of thing. And we should definitely do something to help our former colonies.
That being said, there's politics. If we send money to a free, democratic, functional country, then we can assume the money will be used for the good of its citizens. However, many former colonies ended up with corrupt governments - by our fault, most of the time. And you see how that can become a problem. Not only we'd send money that will enrich a few oligarchs instead of the people, but we'd help them use that money as propaganda about how they made an european country bend to their will.
It's complex, and we can't just start toppling governments left and right. I'm all for helping, but we can't just send money and say it's settled.
From what I've seen most people that live in those countries want tools and infrastructure more than anything else. They don't want a blank check, and they generally don't want people to swoop in and "fix" things, they just want to be lent a hand when they need it. Honestly I think that the thing that would probably help them the most is cheap and easy access to IP.
OP
OP
I wouldn't really call it that . its repayment for stolen resources , lost live, etc
Those should be able to sue, it's a lot more clear-cut if there's a clear path from damaged to damager.
I'm all for reparations in the form of ending current exploitation. Unfortunately that won't happen...
I'm a maybe. I think there are situations where reparations could be justified, but I don't know by any framework you could do so that was clear cut. What period of history do we think Europeans should pay for? Does this extend for Turkey that also had a large part of Africa. I'm not saying no, I'm just not sure how you implement this practically.
Let me tell you a little not so much secret, 90 percent of the civil wars are because of European draw a line on a page boundaries.
The UK government was forced by the courts to apologise and pay money for atrocities in Kenya. I think legal action is the only likely way you'll see a UK Gov paying out money.
www.theguardian.com
This is a clearer case since some victims are alive, but it does demonstrate a process.
Uncovering the brutal truth about the British empire | Marc Parry
The Long Read: The Harvard historian Caroline Elkins stirred controversy with her work on the crushing of the Mau Mau uprising. But it laid the ground for a legal case that has transformed our view of Britain’s past
www.theguardian.com
This is a clearer case since some victims are alive, but it does demonstrate a process.
Yes, in some form. If one is allegedly too complicated then another.
I'd be interested to hear what people think about the UK's practice of giving back a % of GNI each year:
Both the practice and the amount. If it's not directly addressing the issue then specifically the practice and whether it would provide a means to move forward?
I'd be interested to hear what people think about the UK's practice of giving back a % of GNI each year:
Both the practice and the amount. If it's not directly addressing the issue then specifically the practice and whether it would provide a means to move forward?
Yeah, several European countries were a victim of this but I hardly see this brought up in discussions on here.
I live in a former colony that was integrated into the metropole due to having a land border, I think Russia kind of paid its reparations in the form of free education and free medical care, obviously it won't resurrect millions killed and forced to leave their land for Turkey or Europe and it took a regime change for that to happen, but at least it's something. Russia was also pretty good at assimilation, so, you won't hear many complaints from the native Siberians either, nowadays most of them consider themselves ethnically Russian, just look at the current mayor of Moscow.
Overall, it's a hard topic, from the historical perspective a good chunk of Eastern European states and China have a strong case of asking reparations from Mongolia. China and Korea from Japan. Vietnam from France and China. Spain from the Arab world etc. I guess I'm leaning to a yes camp, but on a case by case basis.
Overall, it's a hard topic, from the historical perspective a good chunk of Eastern European states and China have a strong case of asking reparations from Mongolia. China and Korea from Japan. Vietnam from France and China. Spain from the Arab world etc. I guess I'm leaning to a yes camp, but on a case by case basis.
Last edited:
No, the concept of "responsibility" gets very fuzzy when it comes to this issue.
You don't go to jail if your son/daughter kills another person neither do you have to pay your children's debt in case they die before you.
So, I absolutely don't see how I as an average person and taxpayer have benefitted from colonialization from 200+ years ago.
Where do you draw the line? Would it be ok to demand reparations from Mongolia?
Ask the royalties for reparations not the average Joes.
You don't go to jail if your son/daughter kills another person neither do you have to pay your children's debt in case they die before you.
So, I absolutely don't see how I as an average person and taxpayer have benefitted from colonialization from 200+ years ago.
Where do you draw the line? Would it be ok to demand reparations from Mongolia?
Ask the royalties for reparations not the average Joes.
How much should Scotland be implicated for its role in the British Empire? It was a big part of Scottish identity, it was a period when they were most prosperous and a key force driving the union with England.
The "original sin" often created long term effects where one country remains in squalor to this day and the offending country enjoys status of a "first world" or developed nation. It didn't just effect people who are now dead.
IDK about jail, but I have seen people sue the estates of deceased people that are entrusted to descendants. Also, if the money is in royal families and aristocracy, it would be incumbent on "average Joes" of the same nation to do something about that.
It's easy to blame France for what happened in Algeria for the past decades, but from what I saw and my own point of view, it's just algerian old guard being lazy, selfish, corrupt to the core (even common citizen) and not that great of a generation. It would be very dishonest for us, to blame the current state of Algeria on France colonization.
Just to speak about one thing : In the city I came from (one of Algeria biggest city), we don't even have tap water during the days. It's the case for as far as my parents can remember. Everyone find that normal, nobody question it, it's just how it is. How can you blame that level of development and dumbness on colonization that happened 50 years ago ? That's just one of many things.
That long-term effect as an argument could then be used by any country. Historically speaking, every country got invaded by another tribe/country and could claim that this kept them down.
I just wanted to highlight that the correlation between "guilt" and "atonement" is not as easy as it sounds on paper when it comes to history.
Just imagine an immigrant living in Spain paying tax which then covers reparations for things done to his country a few hudred years ago.
It doesn't make sense. Nations are not living entities they are abstract concepts.
Last edited:
Uh... Scotland was absolutely a fundamental part of the British Empire. It shouldn't even be brought up in discussion as distinct from it.