Slavery In Africa
Ladies and gentlemen: I don't believe that
anyone in this chamber would move to
disagree with the idea that slavery was
an atrocity, committed from the
depths of the darkest parts of the human
sole. Cruelty is the readiness to give
pain to others or lack of concern for
their suffering. Pertaining to exactly
what the white man did to the black
slaves. Slavery was not an institution of
neither economical nor a
paternalistic system. It was a brutal, inhumane abuse
of mankind. Africans
were seized from their native land, and sold into lives of
servitude in a
foreign land. Indeed, it was a tragedy on such a scale that
cannot be
measured nor quantified. And it is this very notion of tragedy, which
speaks
to the matter of reparations for slavery. To be quite blunt,
reparations,
even if they may be deserved, are not feasible under any system
or economic
tangent. Not only would such an undertaking not remedy the
situation, but it
would sink Africa and her people deeper into the cycle of
poverty and oppression
that they have so struggled to free themselves from.
While the arguments against
reparations may seem shallow or self-serving to
advocates of such a system, upon
examination, the logistics of what to give,
and whom to distribute it to,
preclude any potential benefits of such a
system of indemnity and requite. The
point of the following critique is not
to say that Africans were not mistreated,
nor that they are not worthy of
reparations, but that perhaps reparations are
not an adequate solution to
this situation, and certainly will only serve to
worsen. Aside from any
philosophical or idea-based arguments against
reparations, there exist a
number of logistical barriers to repaying blacks for
their suffering.
Immediate questions arise in the realm of distribution - it is
intuitive that
such reparations would be difficult to distribute, much less to
decide how
much, or where to place the funds or assistance. The questions are
impossible
to answer: who was the most oppressed? Which family or group of
people
received the cruelest treatment - should they get the most money
or
assistance? Such questions cannot be decided, nor is it fair to quantify
or
compare the suffering of different people - if we started to hand
out
assistance, some would invariably demand more than others. Some of
African
descent were never taken into slavery, nor were oppressed by whites -
even if
one believed they are deserved of reparations, it would be impossible
for an
international body to distinguish or properly disburse the requite
among
Africans of diverse backgrounds. Some Africans have indeed become
wealthy within
then white world and do not require assistance - yet it would
be unfair to
slight them their share - did they not also once suffer? It is
equally
impossible to prove whether or not someone actually was a slave, or
how long
they had been slaves; no records of such history were ever kept.
Also worth of
addressing is African involvement in slavery - it ought to be
decided whether
those Africans deserve reparations. Some historians agree
that many early slave
traders justified their actions because of African
involvement in the trade
itself - guns and technology bought these African
kings from the Europeans. By
this logic, even if they were forced to sell
these slaves, they did indeed
contribute to the effort -are the nations,
which contain these former kingdoms
today, deserved of repayment? Positively,
it is unfeasible to say who did and
who did not, as any logical observer
would note. It is equally unworkable to
decide whether or not they too were
victims of the slave trade, the arguments
either way would be morally
irreparable - for are they responsible for the
actions of their ancestors? In
total, no governing body can be sure of neither
who these reparations ought
to be distributed to, nor what form they ought to
take. One might argue that
just general monetary grants should be given to
African nations - but
that leaves African Americans out of the process, who
formerly suffered as
Africans. While perhaps the ideas that Mazuri presents are
perhaps worthy of
noting or discussion, we find that there are many unanswered
questions in the
issue - the risks of the distribution process outweigh
potential benefits.
The final case against the organized business of reparations
for slaves is
that indemnifies the question of who ought to bear responsibility
for
repaying the slaves for their oppression and abuse. Is there a certain
group
of people that ought to be most responsible for the reparations -
should the
average citizen pay for slavery? Both are questions, which cannot
be
sufficiently responded to. No single person ought to be paying more for
slavery
than another; in fact few people alive today has ever committed
slavery or owned
slaves; they ought not to be held responsible for the
actions of their ancestors
who perhaps once did have slaves. Also worth
noting is the idea that those
nations most responsible for slavery are unable
to pay for it, such as Belgium
and Portugal, while relatively benign
countries like Great Britain are economic
powers in Europe. This makes the
interesting point of such, and I feel that
Britain does not have to pick
up the slack and pay for what other nations did -
it is equally unfair as
giving reparations to Africans who were not slaves. One
of the suggestions
that are also raised is that of establishing an IMF fund for
African
nations. However, it is the tax money of average citizens paying for
these
reparations - no one say that these people were actually the ones
who
contributed to slavery. The hard-earned taxes of the middle class should
not go
to foreign funds to deal with guilt for African tragedies, but to
education for
all people, without regard to race or discrimination. The point
is that all in
all, those who did not contribute to slavery ought not to pay
for it - neighbors
of criminals do no go to prison for being near the
criminal, nor the children or
grandchildren of criminals serve time to
society. I would, once again, like to
make clear that I do not disagree that
slavery was an act of near genocide, and
ought never be forgotten nor
trivialized - we owe the African of our day a great
apology. Nor do I
disagree that perhaps Africans contributed to global markets
in the early
days of European expansion. However, I do not think it right that
we bandage
Africa in requital of our own guilt, thusly entrenching the very
notion of
segregation and discrimination that we are discussing here today.
African
peoples and nations may be deserved of recompense, but it will never
truly be
possible to requite the losses in any form of goods or services by a
foreign
power. If Africans need money, it need not be asked for under guise of
slave
reparations. We should not bestow these requites of shallow money
and
assistance on Africa - it would distinguish them as something different,
and
entrench the mindset of racism, and the paradigm of separate
treatment.
Naturally, the point of this address was to display to the
chamber the
impracticality of providing such "quick-fix" solutions, and of
ever
hoping to properly distribute these funds within a reasonable timeframe
of
effectiveness. Surely, I believe deeply that Africans have been abused
and
oppressed - yet we should not buy the forgiveness of Africa, nor should
Africa
have to accept our payments. I urge you, to please have the foresight
to not
entrench the very notions of which it is so paramount that we battle,
but to
find an alternative solution to Africa's dilemma.