Should descendants of slave traders give up their inheritance?
Posted by: Mat Cork on 05 December 2009
Interesting discussion about this with a chap I sat next to on a plane yesterday...something I'd not thought about previously.
Should folk in the UK who are the descendants of slave traders, and are sitting on significant amounts of inheritance from this trade, pay it back to african folk?
My initial thought was to say 'no', but I'm not so sure now. Apparently a number of wealthy land owning families in this country live on on estates that were built on slave trading. I tend to think that maybe they should give it back. It's ill gotten wealth.
It's a complex issue though. My grandparents had some extremely unsavoury skeletons in their closets and remained unrepentant to their graves. I don't feel even in the tiniest bit guilty about their actions...and I have benefited from them in terms of chances in life/education etc. But, since I didn't actually inherit money from them...I have nothing to payback. If I had...maybe I would.
An interesting moral dilemma for many so called 'respectable' families in this country...what are your thoughts?
Posted on: 05 December 2009 by u5227470736789439
It's impossible.
Everyone who has inherited a significant fortune would be subject to claims - bogus or real enough - made from some quarter or another.
Where would the onus of proof lie - with the fortunately rich or the challenger?
What standard of legal evidence would be required?
It is a nice idea from a strictly moral perspective, but which is impossible in reality.
And what about all the ancient barons who gained wealth at the expense of the labours of the peasants? What of the people who luted Jewish houses in Europe while the Nazis exterminated and exploited the Jews themselves. Of course there have been proven cases where art-works have been returned to the famillial decendants of those robbed in the case of certain Jews, but ...
Well should, for example, the Elgin Marbles be returned to Greece? [I incline in that case to the thought that they should]. There are many injustices, but more valuable than worrying about injustices from former times, we would be better guided by the moral imperitive to reduce current injustices, IMHO.
ATB from George
Posted on: 05 December 2009 by Mat Cork
I can see that perspective as well George. However the examples given would be very difficult to establish.
There are however (I'm told) families living on the estate properties that their forefathers built from the singular profit of being slave traders. If this is the case, and there is a clear line of inheritance of a given asset to the present day...I think justice should be done...in the same way, a stolen item would be taken from the son of the man that stole it.
I'm not saying however that I've got a firm position on this...it's an interesting dilemma.
Posted on: 05 December 2009 by Don Atkinson
Mat
Lie George says, but I would add....
Its silly
Its impractical
When the Normans return MY inheritance, then (mayby) I would have something to hand out to others
When the Romans return their ill-gotten gains to the Picts, then maybe....
When the Vikings go home.
When the Africans in East Africa allow me to return to my homeland (my ancestors were pushed out about 70,000 years ago.....
My concience is clear
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 05 December 2009 by Mike-B
Mugabe owes my family a farm
I feel like its time we all moved on
Posted on: 05 December 2009 by BigH47
quote:
Its silly
Its impractical
Not as silly and impractical as your suggestions!
Posted on: 05 December 2009 by shoot6x7
I'm sad to say that in human society there has to be someone who shits upon someone else ...
Posted on: 05 December 2009 by DAVOhorn
Hey Guys,
As a Scot and therefor a Celt i want all my lands back from the:
Romans
Vikings
French
Germans
Spanish
Moors
and anybody else who has invaded England over the millenia and disenfranchised the original indigenous population.
So where does it stop.
As we all came out of Africa in the first place perhaps we should go back that far to the beginning of Man's arrival as a species.
regards David
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Mat Cork
They're all not good examples though are they...all abstract.
I'm taking about buildings that were built on the proceeds of slavery, in the ownership of folk who have inherited them.
Giving back land to the celts etc...it's a totally different issue.
If we take the 'somebody always get shat on' line...wht bother with a judicial system?
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Bananahead
Should the descendants of slaves be repatriated as well?
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Steve O
Interesting concept Mat.
What you need to remember though is that when the slave trade was thriving not only was it accepted, it was all legal and above board too.
Unfortunately you can't right the wrongs of history in retrospect. I'm sure every person on this planet would have a claim of some sort if you could. Thankfully things change and slavery is now rightly abhorred though not obsolete.
And what of the decendants of the slaves. Could one argue they are better off where they are now rather than be in the midst of a civil war, an oppressive regime or a famine?
I not sure I know where I stand on that last point but it's an interesting concept.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
When the Vikings go home......
My concience is clear
Cheers
Don
Where would I go?
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Analogue
quote:
Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Interesting discussion about this with a chap I sat next to on a plane yesterday...something I'd not thought about previously.
Should folk in the UK who are the descendants of slave traders, and are sitting on significant amounts of inheritance from this trade, pay it back to african folk?
My initial thought was to say 'no', but I'm not so sure now. Apparently a number of wealthy land owning families in this country live on on estates that were built on slave trading. I tend to think that maybe they should give it back. It's ill gotten wealth.
It's a complex issue though. My grandparents had some extremely unsavoury skeletons in their closets and remained unrepentant to their graves. I don't feel even in the tiniest bit guilty about their actions...and I have benefited from them in terms of chances in life/education etc. But, since I didn't actually inherit money from them...I have nothing to payback. If I had...maybe I would.
An interesting moral dilemma for many so called 'respectable' families in this country...what are your thoughts?
And the banks, Liverpool I beleive was built on the proceeds of the slave trade?
Chris N
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Derry
It was legal the time so no.
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by mikeeschman
They won't.
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Roy T
quote:
Originally posted by Derry:
It was legal the time so no.
I feel retrospective laws are a bad idea wherever the reason.
What about the gold, silver and precious jewels removed, stolen, liberated from South America by the Spanish?
One could argue that the value of this asset could be calculated without too much trouble by examining church and state records and reparation calculated but either repayment of capital or accumulated interest would most likely wreck the world finances... I expect that the ideas behind this posting are worthy but if implemented would not make up for any past horrors and I'm not too sure if those living today can be held responsible for the deeds done of their forefathers.
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Roy T
quote:
Originally posted by ROTF:
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
When the Vikings go home......
My concience is clear
Cheers
Don
Where would I go?
I for one welcome our Overlords contribution to my gene pool
quote:
Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
Hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new land,
To fight the horde, sing and cry: Valhalla, I am coming!
On we sweep with threshing oar, Our only goal will be the western shore...
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by manicatel
Pay it back to who(m?) exactly??
History is full of slavery & conquests & the future may well be as well.
Doesn't make it right, but............................
Matt.
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
People who make such claims might like to consider who actually captured and sold people into slavery in the first place.
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Don Atkinson
Good point Mike
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by Don Atkinson
To clarify (for the benefit of those who can't detect irony)
My list simply illustrates the stupidity of the whole concept of trying to rectify ancestral deeds in the light of current morality.
However, if an individual feels the need to do something as an individual, fine.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by John M
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
People who make such claims might like to consider who actually captured and sold people into slavery in the first place.
Demand creates the market.
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by fatcat
quote:
Originally posted by John M:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
People who make such claims might like to consider who actually captured and sold people into slavery in the first place.
Demand creates the market.
The first African slaves sold to white slave traders where already enslaved by fellow AFRICANS
Posted on: 06 December 2009 by John M
quote:
Originally posted by fatcat:
quote:
Originally posted by John M:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
People who make such claims might like to consider who actually captured and sold people into slavery in the first place.
Demand creates the market.
The first African slaves sold to white slave traders where already enslaved by fellow AFRICANS
Well aware. So?
Posted on: 07 December 2009 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
So those making claims should look to Africa. Rather obvious, really.
"Demand creates the market."
So there was a demand for CDs in the 1960s?
Posted on: 08 December 2009 by John M
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
So those making claims should look to Africa. Rather obvious, really.
"Demand creates the market."
So there was a demand for CDs in the 1960s?
SO if I follow your logic, trading companies just decided to sail on down to Africa to go shopping and they said "Hey, look I think I'll pick me up a few of those - maybe someone back home will want one!"
Are you saying the slave traders were just honest business men trying to earn a dollar, and were neutral parties (as in don't kill the messenger?)
