Talk:Reparations for slavery

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bjeremy, Claireregan1206. Peer reviewers: Andrewcm123, CaseyBechtel, Zlittle95, Cbshier, Austenpark.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marssxo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmanuelWilliams.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Why

Did someone redirect this talk page to a separate article? They are clearly distinct.--60.255.0.19 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Would someone please revert the edit in which the talk page was moved? Neither the article nor the talk page focused exclusively upon the United States. Bry9000 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links

I removed the following from the External links section because they are inappropriate for that section. I saved them here because they appear to be excellent sources to support article content:

• "The legal basis of the claim for Reparations" by Lord Anthony Gifford, British Queens Counsel and Jamaican Attorney-at-Law. A paper Presented to the First Pan-African Congress on Reparations, Abuja, Federal Republic of Nigeria, 27-29 April 1993.]
• "Acknowledgement Of Past, Compensation Urged By Many Leaders In Continuing Debate At Racism Conference". World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa, 2 September 2001.
• "National Human Rights Bodies Address General Debate" - action against discriminatory practices urged at Racism Conference. World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa, 4 September 2001,

Jojalozzo (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What makes you feel these are inappropriate external links? Do they fail some part of WP:EL? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What part of WP:EL suggests we use reliable sources as ELs? Since they are appear to be great sources to support article content, they should be used that way. While the policy doesn't say it explicitly, it's implied that good sources should be used as sources, not ELs. If there's really no content in the article they can support, they probably aren't good ELs either. Jojalozzo (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was hasty in including the link to the R.F.America video. As a video, it's not a good source and belongs in ELs. I've moved it back. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I guess I've never heard an editor say a good source makes a bad external link, but I can see your point. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic slave trade

The first sentence used to say that the Atlantic Slave Trade is what enslaved the African ancestors of whom are now campaigning for reparations. I changed it to make it clear that we are talking about slavery in the Americas and implied that the responsibility of Americas' slavery, was not so much in the trade, but in those who utilized involuntary and racialized workers; in other words, on the demand to enslaved Black people.

• Blaming the trade for most of slavery in the Americas is wrong on many levels. First, although selling enslaved folks is a form of "trade," it is people, not the "trade," who enslaved other humans.

• Second, if we refer here to African descendants (African Diaspora) in the Americas, who are the ones who have built a coherent argument for reparations (there are others in other parts of the world too, but they have not joined the campaign entirely), the enslavers are, then, principally the planters, but also others who felt the need to "invest" in slaves as commodities, and others who felt they needed the service of an enslaved African or two. These were the true enslavers.

• Third, in the 19th-century, abolitionists began calling the ships that transported Africans to the Americas, "slavers" but in order to link planters directly to the then discredited and dishonored "African trade" (the way the "Atlantic slave trade" was called then). It was never done, however, to place the responsibility of the American slavery only on the lap of the traders. Instead, abolitionists wanted slave owners to admit accountability and thus renounce slavery altogether. Planters like Jefferson claimed US planters were "forced" to become slavers by British colonialism, and could not simply eliminate it without incurring bankruptcy.

• Fourth, African slavery in the Americas functioned even without the assistance of the Atlantic slave trade. It did so at the beginning of European colonialism in the Americas, when the first enslaved Africans were brought directly from Spain (and not from Africa), without using the infamous Triangular trade. In fact, the period of slavery's most extraordinary growth in the United States, Cuba, and Brazil took place from the early 1800s to the 1880s (in the US it ended in 1863-5). And this was a period in which these countries signed acts and treaties (e.g., Slave Trade Act) renouncing to participate in the Atlantic slave trade. Cuba and Brazil were notorious for violating these agreements, and the US was far from being perfect either.

However, in the US, the passing of the act drastically diminished its direct involvement in the trade. Admittedly, US captains transporting unwilling Africans to the US continued making it through the British and US navies, and a good number of US traders continued enriching themselves with the nefarious business by carrying enslaved Africans to Brazil and Cuba. However, the drop in new enslaved Africans arriving in the US was sufficient to change the nature of slavery during the Antebellum. Scholars call the resulting change, the "Second Slavery" (see also the case in Cuba). So, the Atlantic slave trade played no significant part in the growth of cotton slavery in the US (not counting the millions it brought before, of course). Though the domestic slave trade and the natural growth of enslaved Blacks helped, it was the demand for coerced labor combined with ideas of race what made the "Second Slavery" and ultimately, the whole of slavery possible in the Americas.

If you have a different idea, please, please, discuss it here before reverting the change. However, if you think you can write a better introduction (which I believe that it needs help), please, do so, while considering the arguments here. Thanks. 71.63.91.85 (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

While it's factually correct to say that the slaves were not enslaved "by" the Atlantic Slave Trade, the better remedy would be to say that they were enslaved "as part of" the Atlantic Slave Trade. For one thing, it preserves the link to the very robust Atlantic Slave Trade article. Also, saying they were enslaved "in the Americas" is incorrect, or at least off topic; much of the article deals with calls for reparations in Europe, and there is a separate, lengthy article about Reparations for slavery debate in the United States.

Separately, the subsequent edit introducing the African Institution should be reverted. There is no reason to reference an obscure organization from the 1820s in the intro to an article on current-day reparations debates.Kirkpete (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I've now made these changes. I also think it would make sense to merge this article with Reparations for slavery debate in the United States.Kirkpete (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem with your changes to the lead section, Kirkpete, is that the article discusses proposals for reparations to Africans as well as those in the diaspora. You removed the portion of the lead section that summarized such proposals and left only the diaspora.

The question of merging with Reparations for slavery debate in the United States is a separate one, and one to which I am strongly opposed. That article is much longer than this one, but it is poorly sourced and full of original research. If there is any merger, and it is far from clear that one is necessary, it should be into this article, which deals with calls for reparations in three continents, not just one country. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential Sources and Improvements

Here are some sources I found that may be good for finding more information on this topic: Books - "Living History: Encountering the --Claireregan1206 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)Memoir of the Heirs of Slavery" - "Britain’s Black Debt: Reparations for Caribbean Slavery and Native Genocide" Databases - "Slavery and Anti-Slavery = US and European slavery archives" - "Slavery, Abolition and Social Justice 1490-2007 = slavery and abolition studies" Articles - Estimating Slavery Reparations: Present Value Comparisons of Historical Multigenerational Reparation Policies - Saving the Republic: State Nostalgia and Slavery Reparations in Media and Political Discourses - Slavery Reparations - US Reparations to Descendants of Enslaved Blacks in the US Several annual reports of anti-slavery societies

Ideas for ways to expand, improve, and organize the page - The first "lead" section of this article is very underdeveloped, and does not provide a good summary for what will be in the rest of the article. I would start by briefly editing this. - In the "Demands for slavery" section, it would be good to add sub-sections for each country or region, and add more detail on the history of slave reparations in each country. - Other sections good also be added.For example, perhaps there could be a section on the debates over slavery reparations, who important leaders or movements may have been, etc.

- Claireregan1206 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for Reparations

This could be significantly improved by adding a list of reasons why different groups of individuals believe that they deserve reparations. A lot of these reasons are outlined in the Ta-Nahesi Coates piece. Including this would give readers some context on reasons behind reparations. Some examples of what I am referring to are: the wealth that was brought into an area as a result of slavery, poverty unfairness due to institutions, the wealth gap, etc.

Zlittle95 (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism

This article is very well sourced, and the tone is encyclopedic. There are no statements of opinion, and all information provided is corroborated with citations.

One concern is the lead section, which only offers a brief description of what the idea of reparations entails. A summary of the information provided in the following section would be beneficial.

In addition, the sole section of content is just a list of various international legislation/movements related to reparations. The chronological structure is appropriate, but perhaps consider adding more content, and dividing it differently (e.g. geographically). This is a very in-depth and controversial topic, and the reader may want more than a list of legislation / movements. Consider researching and summarizing some of the theoretical arguments for and against slavery, as well as the historical context for reparations movements in different geographies. Much of this information (for the United States) exists at the “Reparations for slavery debate in the United States”, and may prove to be a useful model. HOWEVER, be skeptical in applying that model. As some other editors have mentioned, it offers a lot of info, but not many sources, and includes a lot of original research.

Overall, great tone and use of citation, though more in-depth information may make it that much better!

Austenpark (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There is some constructive criticism of this idea written in an OP ED piece by Thomas Sowell in 2000 (https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/71785441/). In the U.S. this issue has been part of the election cycle since at least since the election of Geo. W. Bush in 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemartinofscb (talk • contribs) 10:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Explanations for Some Edits

- Added a little more substance to the introductory paragraph to better reflect the substance of the article - Added information on oppositions to the US reparation demands - Added information about the UN demands for the US - Added information on Caribbean demands - Overall edits made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claireregan1206 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Who is Honshu Amariel?

I see the citation, but I doubt I could get a copy of the book cited to prove this person actually exists. The only search results the name turns up all feature the same statement as the wiki, verbatim. This alleged proposal seems to be the only thing anyone knows about this person. Wikipedia articles get aggregated by robots just like any other online content, but it also occurred to me this could be some kind of spam. The part about offering people $1m to leave sounds ludicrous. 219.167.56.174 (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know who Amariel is. I wasn't able to find her or him in Google except in copies of this article, and the source cited was published by a vanity press, so it's not a reliable source. I deleted the sentence in question. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Expansion in scope

More people were enslaved than just africans. The Ottoman empire enslaved non-Muslims regardless of race. Surely there is someone out there calling for reparations on this? Xanikk999 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Canada

The British Empire conducted slavery in Canada, and should pay reparations for this.[1][2]GeorgBLMFloy (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but I've removed your edit from the article as the way it was phrased contravened WP:NPOV. MFlet1 (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I note that neither of you, GeorgBLMFloy or MFlet1, are demanding reparations from the Africans and Arabs who were heavily involved in the slave trade. You are hypocritical ideologues who should be ashamed of yourselves. Please slink away from the encyclopedia and never come back. 98.237.242.206 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a matter of historical fact that people in Africa and the Arab peninsula, as well as many other societies, were involved in the slave trade, however it makes no sense to demand reparations from foreign governments. The descendants of American slaves, for example, will naturally demand reparations from the American government, as that is the government which their ancestors were held captive under. Owing to the destruction of enslaved peoples' identities, tracing their lineage back to their home nations is difficult. Calling people hypocrites for this seems unnecessarily hostile. Nobody is asking you personally to pay reparations. There is a long history of formerly-slaveholding societies undercutting the brutality of their history by deflecting to other targets. But let's take your argument at face value: Should descendants of slaves demand reparations from every government that has ever engaged in slavery? Absolutely. Will they get what they want? Probably not. On the contrary it is often the perpetrators of that terrible institution who have received reparations, rather than the victims. Haiti, for instance, was forced to pay reparations to France, for 122 years, for the crime of abolishing slavery on the island through violent revolution. It is important to ponder why it is that the nations of the colonizers more easily receive reparations than the nations of the colonized. 16:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:F305:2300:6986:C68F:5A1A:F1D8 (talk)

Why didn't you chose to include the racial wealth gap in the article?

I feel like this is something that needs to be brought up because not many people are aware of this huge racial wealth gap between African Americans and white people, I feel like it is something that is relevant to how African Americans live in this country in the present day. EmanuelWilliams (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

NPR link

The NPR link doesn’t work. 2600:8806:1205:9700:B523:92DB:A108:5D39 (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

he silent part out loud

There needs to be a greater discussion about Britain paying reparations to African Americans for slavery on their watch. Due to the work of scholarly efforts including the 1619 Project we can get a better view of English colonies in North America such as Jamestown prior to the U.S. King Charles III has all but admitted to British slavery since his coronation, and my people deserve reparations from both governments. The U.S had slavery for generations, plus the 157 years of British colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.158.100.181 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)